Mark Harper: I listened to that answer with care. The Minister mentioned people working with all vulnerable adults. I know that the Home Secretary has been made aware by the Association of Chief Police Officers of one problem in our care home sector, in which many of the workers are overseas nationals, and the difficulty of getting good criminal records checks for them because of the problem of getting data from overseas. I have written to the Minister for Borders and Immigration on that point. Can the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens are properly protected?

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has worked long and hard to make sure that in tackling antisocial behaviour, we nip in the bud the behaviour that causes it and provide the support that is necessary to prevent it from happening. She is right that although the number of individual support orders placed alongside antisocial behaviour orders has increased, certainly with respect to young people, that ought to be the case in every consideration of an antisocial behaviour order, so that we can stop the damage to communities and help to prevent young people in particular from continuing such behaviour, which is bad for them and the places where they live.

Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the independent reviewer on terrorism legislation that the figures that Liberty put out on detention periods in different countries are grossly misleading? Will she provide our colleagues with a fairer comparison of the effective detention periods in different countries?

Jacqui Smith: All of us, I am afraid, will have to take an important decision on Wednesday about this country's security and whether we want to give our investigators the tools that they need. Is the right hon. Gentleman completely confident, notwithstanding the new tools that we have put in place for investigators, that no police investigation in serious terrorist circumstances would ever need to hold somebody for longer than 28 days? If he completely confident, I think that he is misleading himself. If he is not, he is misleading his party in opposing our proposals on Wednesday.

Ruth Kelly: I rise to make a statement about improving public transport and tackling congestion in Greater Manchester. Before I do so, and in view of the number of my hon. Friends representing Greater Manchester constituencies who are in their places today, I am sure that all here would want to join me in offering condolences to the friends and family of the police officer who tragically died during a training exercise in Manchester today.
	The transformation of our great cities and major towns has been one of the remarkable success stories of recent years. Across the country, we have seen new investment, new jobs created and a growing confidence about the future, but our future prosperity is threatened by the growing problem of congestion on our roads. The economic, environmental and social consequences of congestion are unacceptable. That is why the Government have been working with local communities and leaders to meet that challenge.
	The Government already provide £2 billion a year in capital support for local transport. On top of that, we set up the transport innovation fund to encourage areas with imaginative local ideas specifically to target congestion. From this financial year, the Government have earmarked at least £200 million a year to support such schemes and invited local bids for the funding. Last July, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority submitted the first business case under the transport innovation fund.
	Greater Manchester is one of the fastest growing economies in the UK. It has seen the creation of 45,000 new jobs in the last five years. The Greater Manchester authorities are determined to build on that success and have a clear vision to make it one of Europe's premier city regions. But they have identified congestion as an increasing brake on their ambition and prosperity, putting one in seven future jobs at risk. That could be about 30,000 jobs in 2021. In order to sustain economic growth and prevent any deterioration in their citizens' quality of life, Manchester's Authorities have decided that they must take action both to improve local transport links and target road congestion. The proposals they have submitted combine unprecedented Investment in public transport in Greater Manchester, followed at a later stage by a congestion charging scheme to reduce traffic on the city's roads.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Regional and Local Transport considered the bid carefully against the published guidance and I am pleased to announce today that the Greater Manchester bid has been granted programme entry. That is a significant step. It means that the Government support the package in principle and commit ourselves to working closely with Greater Manchester as it develops its proposals in the coming months. We have, therefore, provisionally made available £1.5 billion of central Government funding to help to meet the cost of the £2.8 billion package; the remaining amount will be funded by Greater Manchester.
	That comprehensive package will deliver to Greater Manchester—and its citizens—a world-class public transport system. The proposals include plans for up to seven extensions—amounting to 22 miles of new routes—to the Metrolink system, including lines to Ashton, the airport and East Didsbury. People will see bus services transformed, with new cross-city bus routes as well as more reliable, frequent and safer services for passengers. The introduction of smartcards will cut queues and costs. There will be major improvements to local rail, including more carriages and seats on busy commuter routes, safer and more comfortable stations and improved passenger information. A network of yellow school buses will be introduced to ferry pupils to school and help to cut car journeys. There will also be investment in new cycle routes and secure cycle parking spaces, as well as improved park and ride facilities for rail and Metrolink.
	To ensure that the people of Greater Manchester have real choices over their journeys, the majority of the improvements will be in place before the introduction of the congestion charge in 2013. The charging scheme will operate only in peak times, when congestion is at its worst. Only vehicles crossing the outer or inner ring into the city centre in the morning, and leaving during the evening peak time, will face charges. The peak-hours-only congestion charging scheme is considered critical to the success of the package, maximising the economic benefits, constraining future congestion and providing a local revenue stream to support public transport investment across Greater Manchester.
	Studies have shown that the combined package of investment in public transport followed by congestion charging would deliver far more benefits in terms of the city's economic growth and quality of life than either investment or a charging scheme alone. To allow as many people as possible the opportunity to express their views on the proposal, Greater Manchester will now hold a public consultation. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, and after further work has been completed, the next step for Greater Manchester is to submit a bid for conditional approval to my Department. We expect that to happen in the autumn.
	The Government are also in discussion with other towns and cities where local leaders believe that combining extra investment in public transport with congestion charging schemes is the right long-term solution for their area. Greater Manchester's proposals demonstrate their determination to develop innovative approaches to tackling congestion for the benefit of the economy and the mobility of people living in the city region.
	Today, as a country, we are faced with an unprecedented growth in people's desire to travel. It is essential that we provide people with greater choice over how and when they travel, cut congestion on our roads and take the right decisions for our quality of life, the environment and the long-term health of our economy. I commend this statement to the House.

Theresa Villiers: I, too, would like to express the Opposition's condolences to the family of the police officer who so tragically died.
	The proposals could see Manchester commuters paying £1,200 a year in congestion charges—8 per cent. of the income of someone on a £15,000 wage—when they are already struggling to make ends meet with rocketing fuel prices and multiple tax increases. Will the Secretary of State confirm that today's package would leave council tax payers footing the bill if the transport projects proposed overrun their budget, and that council tax payers also bear the risk if the revenue from the scheme fails to cover the £1.24 billion in borrowing that the Government are asking Manchester to take on? The London experience shows that collection costs can be considerable. With the net profit of the London scheme estimated at just £10 million since its inception, if the charge in Manchester is successful in reducing congestion, that will further reduce revenue and increase financial risk.
	Transport improvements in Manchester, including Metrolink extensions, are, of course, welcome, but today's announcements on Metrolink do not make up for 11 years of Labour broken promises on light rail, including pulling the plug on Leeds and Liverpool. Were not improvement schemes in today's package, such as the Bolton rail-bus interchange, already promised by Labour before the TIF bid? What guarantees have people in Manchester that the charge will not be increased excessively in future? Has extending the congestion charge to a third outer ring been ruled out?
	Finally but most important, why are the Government pressing ahead with this proposal when three out of 10 local councils oppose it and one is demanding a referendum? Why are they not prepared to offer the whole conurbation of Manchester a referendum on the scheme? The truth is that the Government are telling Manchester, "If you say yes to congestion charging you will receive money to improve transport, but if you say no you will not." That is bullying, pure and simple.
	Why is the Secretary of State depriving her own constituents in Bolton, West of a free choice on the issue? Everyone knows that she is not too happy in the Cabinet. Will she back her Government or her constituents on this issue? Her statement was heard in stony silence on both sides of the House. Will it turn out to be the longest resignation letter in history?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Lady came here today, yet again, with not a single policy proposal to her name: not a single proposal to tackle congestion in our towns and cities. Eighty per cent. of congestion today exists in our towns and cities, and over the next 10 years 80 per cent. of congestion will build up in our towns and cities. When Rod Eddington examined the issue he said that the economy would suffer to the tune of £22 billion if we did nothing, but the hon. Lady's proposal appears to do just that: nothing at all. She has ducked so many difficult issues that she practically walks—

Norman Baker: May I add my condolences to those expressed by the Secretary of State in respect of the police officer who has died? May I also thank the Secretary of State for giving me notice of the statement—although in light of your welcome statement just now, Mr. Speaker, I am bound to ask the right hon. Lady how three national newspapers were able to report this story on Friday? How were they able to get information about this announcement, which has been made to the House only this afternoon?
	The Secretary of State will know that the Liberal Democrats support in principle the use of market mechanisms to achieve environmental ends, and that we therefore support congestion charging and road pricing. Does she accept, however, that as motorists will be worse off as a consequence of this congestion charge scheme, it is important to front-load public transport improvements across Greater Manchester so that the benefits for those using public transport and those using private motor vehicles are clear? More specifically, will she also accept that although the proposed scheme might work for the city centre and parts of Greater Manchester, it will not work for other parts, as the benefits will not be evenly spread? For example, in Hazel Grove and Cheadle the charge will be payable but there will be minimal improvements in public transport, and Stockport will be cut in half and people will be required to pay to cross from one side of Stockport to the other. Will she, therefore, look at the detail of the scheme to ensure that the benefits of congestion charging are rolled out across the whole area?
	Will the Secretary of State also explain the role of consultation and assure the House that it will not be the phoney consultation we saw on Heathrow, but that instead it will genuinely involve local people and local people will decide what happens with the Government proposals, rather than any other mechanism? Will she explain, too, how the views of local councils will be taken into account, given that at least three oppose the proposals?
	Finally, does the Secretary of State not think that it is a little inconsistent for Members of this House to say that they are green, that they believe in market mechanisms and that they want localism, and then to try to rubbish comprehensively a scheme that at least partially meets those objectives, as the Conservatives have done today?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is a sophisticated scheme. In fact, one of its great merits is that it does not charge people throughout the day, as in London, for travelling in and out of the scheme. It is a peak-hours-only scheme, using a tag and beacon system. When people enter the zone, they will have to pay once and there is no prospect of their having to pay twice for entering the scheme. Clearly, they have to enter the scheme, and if they return during the peak hour, they will be charged a top-up fee. It is because the scheme is peak hours that it will reduce the amount of traffic during the peak times, and it will alter the choices that people make between using the car in the peak times, driving outside those times or using public transport. It is an inherent virtue of the scheme that it can charge people for driving at the most congested period of the day, rather than for using the roads per se.

Ruth Kelly: I shall certainly be arguing the case in Bolton that there should be a state-of-the-art interchange linking both the rail services at Bolton with bus services; for a new, high-quality bus route linking Bolton, Farnworth, Kearsley and Manchester with a 10-minute frequency for much of the day, segregated for a large part from other traffic; and for more trains holding more people, so that people can travel in and out of the city centre in less crowded conditions. When those improvements are combined with a real upgrade in the quality of buses provided and a new yellow bus service for children travelling to school, commuters in Bolton will be convinced that an extremely good deal is on the table.

Ruth Kelly: Greater Manchester will want to satisfy itself that people will still be able to travel to work freely and that that journey will be improved for the vast majority of people in the future, both for motorists as a result of reduced traffic on the roads, which will lead to shorter journeys and more reliable travel times, and for those who choose to travel on the roads outside peak hours or on the new bus and rail services. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of a good consultation process. I understand that the Greater Manchester authorities will provide information to every household across Greater Manchester, although these are questions for them. There will be exhibitions where people will be able to come and find out more about the proposals, and views will be gathered so that they can be submitted to the Government.

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is essential that as a result of the proposals, social inclusion is not only maintained but improved and that communities do not become divided but are brought together. The bid offers local people the opportunity to make the case to the GMPTA about what improvements are needed to make that happen. Buses might need to be more frequent or more reliable, or the prices might need to be kept down. The local discount scheme might need to be designed in a particular way. The yellow bus service might need to take into account that some parents live on one side of the boundary while the school is on the other side. The £2.8 billion package is sufficient for that.

David Chaytor: I welcome today's announcement, because the improvements to local bus services and to Metrolink will be of enormous benefit to my constituents, who have waited far too long. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on confronting the difficult issue of congestion charging, on not running away from it and on not conceding to those who want to put their heads in the sand and hope that congestion will go away, because it will not? Does she agree that a lot of fine tuning needs to be done during the further consultation period? Will she look in particular at the questions of exemptions for public service workers and residence permits for those within the zone? In particular, will she consider differential charging according to the emissions rating of the vehicle, so that those who run the most fuel efficient vehicles will pay less in the congestion charging scheme?

Phil Woolas: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Mr. Speaker, I understand that you and the spokesmen for the Opposition parties have been informed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sends his sincere apologies for his absence. He is unwell, but it is temporary and he will be back at work very soon. He has asked me to stand in for him.
	Every Member of this House knows of the urgent need to prevent dangerous climate change. The science is clear and is now widely accepted and understood. Last autumn, the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change told us unequivocally that the world's climate is warming, that human activity is by far the principal cause, and that without global action to reduce emissions, we face an increase in average temperatures of up to 4°C by the end of the century. What would that mean? It would mean too much water, not enough water, conflict over water and food, people moving across the earth looking for somewhere to live, economic disruption and a real risk of reaching the point at which abrupt or irreversible climate change happens.
	The effects are already being felt. The World Health Organisation tells us that 150,000 people are already dying each year from climate change. The United Nations estimates that all but one of its emergency appeals in 2007 were to do with the climate—in Darfur, for example, where shifts in rainfall have made the conflict worse as people compete for grazing land.
	As Nick Stern said in his hugely influential report on the economics of climate change:
	"The benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs".
	The benefits include not only avoiding devastating economic and human cost—the equivalent of world war 1, world war 2 and the great depression put together—but enormous economic opportunities for those companies and countries that adapt and innovate in leading the new industrial revolution, the low-carbon revolution.

Tony Baldry: The Minister is pushing at an open door in persuading not all, but the overwhelming majority of the House, I suspect, about the urgent need for the Bill, but will he help us with the question of targets? In the other place, Lord Rooker made it clear, saying:
	"We admit that the 60 per cent target is an old one; it is seven years old...There have been significant advances in science since the 60 per cent target was set". —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2007; Vol. 697, c. 179.]
	Lord Stern now says that there should be an 80 per cent. target by 2050. Is it not a cop-out simply to try to pass that on to a committee? Should not this House and Parliament take the political decision to set the target and accord with what people such as Lord Stern now advise?

Phil Woolas: On the provisions in the Bill as it stands, there are two points. First, the target should be at least 60 per cent., with a request to the committee on climate change to consider whether it should be even higher than that. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I should say that Ministers and Parliament will take those decisions after the expert advice has been sought. I hope that his point will come out in the debate—and if I can move on, we are more likely to get to that debate.

Phil Woolas: My hon. Friend makes an important point, as he always does on these and other matters. How one reaches the target is more important than the target itself. I do not diminish the importance of the target as a framework for action, but it is the interim budgets that set us on that track. The work of the independent Climate Change Committee will give advice not just on the interim five-year budgets, but on policies to achieve them, and we must take decisions in light of that. Plan B is a combination of the international situation—including what we do if there is not an international agreement at Copenhagen—the interim budgets and the potential international agreement to mid-term targets as well as long-term goals.

Phil Woolas: I would like to move on, because I have a long, detailed speech to make. There is a limit on Back-Bench time already, and the Opposition have to have their say as well, quite rightly. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall move on.
	The Bill makes statutory our commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by at least 26 per cent. by 2020 and by at least 60 per cent. by 2050. The level of the 2050 target has been a matter of much debate and I want to add a bit more detail. It is clear that the science has moved on since the target was originally set. We believe that the best way to respond is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in November, to ask the Committee on Climate Change whether the target should be tightened up to 80 per cent. The committee, with its scientific and economic expertise, is best placed to analyse the facts and provide authoritative advice on the appropriate target. It is a better and more credible way of deciding on the matter—and decide we must—than plucking a new target figure out of the air, as it were.
	The committee's review of the target, which the Bill makes statutory, will take place in the coming months, alongside consideration of the first three carbon budgets, and will be completed by December this year. It will also include the question of whether and how the other internationally recognised greenhouse gases should be incorporated in our targets, rather than simply CO2. We will use the powers in the Bill to do that, if it is what the committee recommends.
	The Bill begins with a purpose clause, which was added in the other place, linking the Bill's objectives to the EU's ambition, which we support, of limiting global temperature rise to 2° C through a global effort. Much as we support the overall goal, I cannot see how that requirement fits into a piece of UK legislation. Any measure based on global temperatures means that we are dependent on what happens elsewhere in the world—in other words, on things outside of our direct control. The UK cannot, through domestic legislation, tell other countries what to do; nor can we legislate to control global temperature—but we can control our own overall emissions, which is why the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to reduce the net UK carbon account. We will therefore seek to remove clause 1.
	One of the Bill's most radical and distinctive features is the framework that it creates for delivering and monitoring the reductions in emissions required to achieve the 2020 and 2050 targets. It establishes a system of five-year carbon budgets, set up to 15 years in advance, to make clear the direction that we are taking and provide greater certainty for business. We propose to strengthen our commitment in the Bill to building a low-carbon economy in the UK. However, we are unable to accept the limit that the other place inserted on the balance between domestic effort and internationally traded credits, because the limit set is arbitrary and undermines clause 34, which asks the Climate Change Committee to advise on the use of credits.
	We need to ensure that the Bill supports our efforts to secure the ultimate prize of a comprehensive global deal to tackle climate change. Investment in low-carbon technologies through the international carbon market is an important part of that.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes my point. He is right—we could hit the target by carrying on in the same way until 2049 and cutting emissions by 80 per cent. in the last year. If we did that, dangerous climate change would occur, with temperatures rising by 8° C, 10° C or possibly more. Emissions of gases are cumulative and the interim target is as important, if not more, than the 2050 target.

Phil Woolas: Consultation with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), confirms that the answer is in the affirmative.
	The Bill also introduces powers to establish new emissions trading schemes within the UK through secondary legislation. Trading schemes are among the most economically efficient means, we believe, of delivering emissions reductions. The first use of those powers will be to implement the carbon-reduction commitment, a mandatory cap and trade scheme covering approximately 4,000 to 5,000 large, non-energy-intensive organisations. That will save some 4 million tonnes of CO2 a year by 2020, making a significant contribution towards achieving our targets.
	As the House will be aware, a significant level of climate change is already inevitable, so we must ensure that we adapt to climate change as well as militate against it. The Bill will put in place a requirement to assess the risks and vulnerability of the UK and to report that to Parliament. The Government will have to lay before the House a programme of action on adaptation to address those risks and vulnerabilities. As part of this effort, all providers of public and other essential services will need to take similar steps. The Bill therefore creates powers for the Government to require service providers to assess the risks and set out the actions that they need to take in response. We will provide statutory guidance to help with that work.

Peter Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend makes an important point that I will touch on later if he is patient and that will no doubt receive a lot of scrutiny in Committee. However, it is worth reiterating that we are not dealing here with trivial issues. The Climate Change Bill is a small but potentially important part of a global effort to reduce the impact that our generation of human beings is having on the ability of future generations to live in peace and prosperity.
	I know that some people continue to doubt the scientific consensus that surrounds the United Nations approach towards measuring the human responsibility for climate change. I am not a scientist, let alone a climate change scientist, but I suggest that it takes exceptional courage to disregard the view of 2,500 of the world's leading specialist scientists.

Tony Baldry: My hon. Friend has not quite responded to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). Some of us in the House deserve a bit of attention today, because it is the 25th anniversary of the 1983 intake into the House of Commons, so I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there will be some indulgence for us this evening. My right hon. Friend was seeking to suggest that the report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change was politically motivated. Can my hon. Friend confirm that as far as the vast majority of us are concerned, these were scientists giving scientific advice? Indeed, Professor Spicer of the Open university, a constituent of mine, suggests that the IPCC underestimates the science. For example, he is concerned that
	"the most recent Working Group 1 report admits that it deliberately ignores the most"—

Alan Simpson: Is not the truth that, even if we take the arguments of those believe that this problem is to do with solar cycles rather than carbon emissions, the reality is that the world faces precisely the same crises? That carbon can act as a surrogate for huge changes in the way we live that will not otherwise address the shortages of water, insecurities of energy and the turbulence of climate change that we will have to manage.

Peter Ainsworth: I must make progress.
	We believe that the Bill, as amended in the Lords, is in pretty good shape. As I have said, we do not want to extend its scope beyond what has already been determined, but in particular we hope that the Government will not seek to weaken it and make it less effective as a means of ensuring British leadership in the global debate and in developing the technologies that we need to de-carbonise our economy.
	Conservatives see the challenge of climate change as an opportunity, rather than as a threat. We in Britain are in danger of falling prey to the threat, rather than rising to the opportunity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who intervened earlier, was absolutely right—dressing up stealth taxes as green taxes is a sure fire way of alienating public opinion and should be avoided.
	We are all too well aware of the rising costs of dependence on fossil fuels. Last week, the price of oil reached an all-time high. The consequences for consumers everywhere are enormous and bad. The rises in fuel and food prices are of course related. The prospect of an economic downturn only reinforces the need to become more energy-efficient, more fuel-efficient, more aware of the limits set by nature, more sparing of our use of natural resources, and more self-sufficient in energy and food. The need to be both greener and safer has never been more apparent, so this Bill is extremely timely.
	As I have said, we do not want to extend the Bill's scope beyond the existing parameters, but we believe it important to retain what it comprises. In particular, we believe that it is important to retain clause 1, which establishes a principal aim
	"to ensure that UK emissions of greenhouse gases do not exceed the level necessary to contribute to limiting the global average temperature increase to not more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels."
	I was disappointed to hear what the Minister had to say about the clause, but no doubt the issue will be further debated in Committee.
	We also believe it right for the Prime Minister to be accountable for progress towards the targets set out in the Bill. I think that the Liberal Democrat spokesman recently said, when we shared a platform at a meeting on climate change—that is an occupational hazard—that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was a "piddling little Department." I know what he meant, because it is wracked by funding crises, unpopular with the Treasury and disrespected by other Departments; DEFRA certainly has its problems. It is our ambition that the Department should do better. It holds a key position in the great debates of our time, on not only climate change—as if that were not enough—but food security, energy security, water supply and pricing, flooding, coastal erosion and the depletion of natural resources. DEFRA should be at the heart of the Government; it should not be marginalised, weak and ineffectual.
	The Bill's provisions involve the whole of Government and the whole economy, not just one Department. It is therefore right for the Prime Minister to assume responsibility for progress towards meeting the targets to reduce climate change emissions. To anyone who says that this is unprecedented, the answer must be that we are dealing with an unprecedented challenge and an unprecedented opportunity for our country, and it is therefore right that the Prime Minister should have responsibility for reporting on progress as set out in clause 4.
	We also believe it important to retain the provisions that aim to ensure that a majority of emissions reductions come from domestic sources, as opposed to being bought, like indulgences, in the often unreliable international credit market. Thus, I was sorry to hear what the Minister had to say about that earlier. We support these measures, not because we believe in wearing a hair shirt, but because we believe in opportunity—I am referring to clause 25.

Peter Ainsworth: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman; indeed, London is already the global centre for the international trade in carbon. I meant to say carbon credits—both carbon and credits. By no means all of the projects supported under that scheme are unreliable, but some of them are. The point is that we need to ensure that we are driving our domestic effort, as well as helping others around the world to contribute to their efforts. That is what is set out in clause 25. Ministers and other hon. Members may be aware of the joint statement put out on that very issue by WWF-UK and Scottish and Southern Energy in support of the clause. They state:
	"A fundamental part of the ambition and purpose of the Bill is to provide a strong framework to guide a sustained decarbonisation of the UK economy."
	They add:
	"Relying significantly on emission reduction which take place overseas could influence long-term investment decisions here in the UK, particularly in the power sector—locking the UK into a high carbon economy for years to come".
	The approach adopted by Scottish and Southern Energy underscores the vital commercial case for setting a framework in the Bill that will give investors the confidence that they need to take the bold decisions that will be needed to drive a dynamic, low-carbon economy, creating green growth and prosperity, and enabling the United Kingdom to take an international lead.

Peter Ainsworth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who chairs the Environmental Audit Committee and who has strong personal views on individual carbon trading. I am glad that he did not raise them with me this afternoon. He is right, and that point is central to the one that I am trying to make to the House. It is also integral to clause 12.
	Indeed, the CBI has expressed its support for the setting of clear and stretching targets, and the structure of rolling carbon budgets, set three periods in advance. I am pleased that clause 12 now also includes a requirement for the Government to set out indicative annual ranges for the net UK carbon account within each five-year budget period. The CBI also supports the establishment of an independent, authoritative Climate Change Committee to provide advice and guidance on the effort needed to meet our obligations.
	As I have said, it is fundamental to our approach that the implementation of measures enabled by this Bill is based on scientific knowledge: economic and social implications will also need to be taken into account, and it will be the role of the Climate Change Committee to do that. I was therefore concerned to read reports that Lord Turner, who was recently appointed to chair the committee, has already announced that he will leave it. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified Lord Turner's position when he responds to the debate.
	One of the committee's first tasks will be to establish the adequacy of the carbon reduction targets set out in the Bill. I know that hon. Members will be aware of the vigorous campaign—it has already been mentioned this afternoon—to lift the long-term target for CO2 reductions from at least 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) has pointed out, there are rational arguments for doing so. The 60 per cent. target is based on the advice of the royal commission on environmental pollution as it was offered eight years ago. The science has moved on since then. Few in the scientific community now believe that 60 per cent. will be adequate.
	The Government will no doubt wish to consider these arguments carefully. Our view from the outset has been that it should be for the Climate Change Committee, not politicians, to determine the scale of the effort needed. The committee will need to have regard to the principal aim of the Bill—provided it is still there—when determining future targets. The scientific understanding of the scale of the challenge will continue to move and it is important to retain flexibility. In any case, I agree with those who have already said that it is meeting the nearer-term, rather than the longer-term, targets that will be critical to success or failure. We must set a short and medium-term trajectory to ensure that the principal aim of the Bill is met.

Alan Whitehead: We have heard this afternoon about one of the most important elements at the forefront of the need to pass the Bill resoundingly through the House: the international significance of what we do, and the way in which the Bill will be not just closely looked at elsewhere across the world, but seen in terms of the discussions that I hope will prove successful in developing international agreements on climate change as a serious and clear statement of this country's intent to play its full part in ensuring that climate change is combated both in this country and internationally.
	If we are thinking about the international effect, perhaps we need look no further than the successful Democratic nominee for the US presidential election in November, who, as hon. Members have already indicated, has already stated on his website and in his policy statements that he supports
	"a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2050."
	His website says:
	"Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned."
	Obama goes further than that; he states in his election platform that he will require 25 per cent. of energy in the United States to be provided from renewable sources by 2025. Indeed, he wishes to set national building efficiency goals and
	"to establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030."
	Well, he is not quite there, as far as the Government are concerned, given their aims for zero-carbon housing, but it is fair to say that one can already see in that plan a number of echoes of what the Government have been doing on climate change and the necessary actions to mitigate it. One can say with reasonable fairness that already what is being done has received echoes in some of the most important parts of the world that will be necessary to ensure that our climate change goals are met.
	The most important meat of the Bill is, of course, carbon budgets and driving down the carbon emissions that this country produces year by year, not just ensuring that, by 2050, we have a figure that looks right in 2050. As my hon. Friend the Minister has already emphasised, we need to ensure that the quantum of CO2 goes down every year and is not in the atmosphere at the end of the period and that that progress is made year on year. Therefore, the interim targets suggested in the Bill are equally important, as indeed are the trading arrangements that will enable those budgets to be maintained over that period.
	Banking and borrowing in the trading system are important in the carbon budget system. We need to listen carefully to what the Committee on Climate Change advises, but it is vital that we make the very clear link between carbon budgets and real reductions in CO2. We cannot get to the 2050 targets just by trading off others; we must make our own binding and long-term reductions in CO2 emissions. Above all, that will help to shape what a real sustainable low-carbon economy will look like. Borrowing our way into claimed low-carbon economic practices will simply not give the shape to the components of that 2050 economy. It is important therefore that that part of the climate change procedure for carbon budgets is right. It was good that the Government moved in the Lords to eliminate the retrospective amendment of a carbon budget when its period is over for that reason.
	It is important also that carbon budgets include all emissions. As we have heard this afternoon, that includes aircraft and shipping emissions, and the Committee on Climate Change should consider at an early stage how those are included under the Bill. Of course, it is essential that we understand the issues of measurement and the apportionment of responsibility. It is good that aviation is now included in the next stage of the European emissions trading scheme. However, to gain the real notion of what our emissions are, it is essential that such things are included, along with real reductions in carbon emissions year by year, in the carbon budgets at an early stage.
	Trading is important, but it has to be in a system that gives persistent, long-term carbon value. The Bill will greatly assist us in achieving that because of the comprehensive nature of the inclusions through which carbon budgets work. The carbon commitment will underline how important that is. That is the long-term legacy of the Bill; it is not about some distant debate in 2051, when someone will stand at the Dispatch Box to account for where we have got to with emissions—that is, if the House is still above water then, and the targets have not been seriously missed. The Bill is not about that debate as much as about the fact that at all stages we will need real, measurable and accountable mechanisms that keep the UK up to speed and on track. If the debate is about the point in 2050 when we learn whether the targets have been met or not, the House will have missed its one chance to make sure that the targets are met. If in 2050 we realise that we did not get things right, it will not be a matter of being sorry; it will be a matter of the planet's future taking a very different direction from the one it would have done if we had got things right.
	Getting the targets right will inevitably mean enormous changes to how energy is deployed, and to the use of renewables instead of the conventional fossil fuel that we have relied on for so many years. Of course, renewables are one of the greatest forms of insurance against rising fuel prices, because they allow us to secure energy that is based on a free source not subject to the price rises that occur as a result of the increasing scarcity of the fossil fuel supplied to developed economies. Getting the targets right will mean many changes, including enormous changes to how we plan our environment and create and dispose of waste. If we decide that we have to create a carbon value for exchange, we will have to do the same for waste and resources. We cannot create a carbon value for many things, but not do so for waste. We cannot continue to think of waste as something that we can throw around our environment, expecting it to be cleared up without taking any account of the consequences.
	That future need not be frightening, but it will be very different, and it will require all parties, whatever party is in government, to maintain the commitments in the Bill. In a sense, the Bill is very different from virtually any other Bill that I have been concerned with in my time in the House, as we cannot take it to pieces at a future date if the fancy takes us. It involves the House making a commitment now if we are to ensure that the Bill stays on the statute book until a guaranteed low-carbon economy has been achieved.
	In agreeing to the Bill's Second Reading today, we are declaring that we will not resile from its provisions. It is not a Bill that can be lost in limbo or watered down at a future date. It has to work, and it has to work now. I trust that that is the commitment that we in the House will all make when we agree to pass the Climate Change Bill, and I trust that we will make sure that it not only reaches the statute book but stays there—

Steve Webb: May I, too, wish the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a speedy recovery from his ill health?
	The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, but in this debate my worry is about the risk of complacency. There is a danger that we will congratulate ourselves on the first Climate Change Bill—that when we go home tonight having agreed to its Second Reading, as I am sure we will, we will say, "Haven't we done well?" when all that we have done is set a not very demanding target. Targets are all very well, but we all know that they have a knack of not being met when the target is only a few years away, let alone when it is a generation or more away—for example, the entirely laudable target of halving child poverty in two years. On the statistics, child poverty is going up. The target of abolishing fuel poverty for the vulnerable is due in a couple of years, and fuel poverty is going up. My concern about the Bill is that if it does not have teeth, we can set the most extraordinary targets we wish and we will be deceiving not only ourselves, but the rest of the world.
	That is why it was regrettable that in his introduction the Minister said that the Government want to remove the teeth that were added in another place—the requirement to report to the Prime Minister. With due deference and no disrespect, I referred to DEFRA as a piddling Department. I also referred to it, mixing my metaphors, as a minnow among wolves; perhaps a minnow among sharks might have been a better description.
	As DEFRA is not responsible for green taxation, transport emissions, housing, energy or any of the other principal sources of emissions, the worry is that no matter how noble and worthy a person they may be, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is just a small cog in a very big wheel. If we do not make the head of the Government of the day responsible for the target, it will not get the priority it deserves and, like so many other targets, will be missed.

Steve Webb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	To implement the targets in the Bill will require funding. My worry about the Department responsible being DEFRA, not the head of the Government, is that the budget of the Department is torn in many different ways. When it is struggling on the farming and rural affairs side, the environment side gets squeezed—as, for example, in the cuts to business recycling projects.
	During the debate we have heard about cross-party consensus. The vital thing is that whichever of the three major parties is running the country in future, the Bill's targets are enforced. My worry is that we have had intimations this afternoon that if the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) were in charge, he would have exactly the same problems as the Secretary of State will have.
	The hon. Gentleman's "Dear Colleague" letter, which has mysteriously fallen into my hands, pre-empts the concerns that we have heard during the debate about the Bill. He is torn. I think he genuinely wants to go further, but his Back Benchers are trying to rein him in. If we had a change of Government, would we see the targets driven forward? The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill goes far enough already. No one out there in the scientific community thinks so.
	I shall give an example. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am not a scientist but I know some people who are. On 21 January four eminent scientists wrote to the Prime Minister. Two of them are former chairs of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, who gave us the 60 per cent. figure in the first place, and the third is the current chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. They write an astonishingly brief letter headed, "UK Climate Change Bill targets are based on out-of-date science" and they say—I quote just one sentence:
	"In tackling the global challenge of climate change, governments must follow the latest science that clearly shows the need for the UK to reduce its CO2 emissions by at least 80 per cent."
	The last part of the sentence is in bold and is a simple, unqualified statement.
	The Government's response throughout has been, "Maybe. We'll ask Adair Turner, if he has any spare time." The worry, however, is that even if Adair Turner and his friends come back with 80 per cent., the Government might not accept it.
	Many Labour Members want 80 per cent., and I genuinely believe that there is support in all parts of the House. The hon. Member for Banbury supports early-day motion 736, which proposes an 80 per cent. target. But the Government's response to those who want the target has been to say, "We'll see what the Climate Change Committee says." If the Climate Change Committee proposes 80 per cent., we need to know that the Government will abide by it; otherwise, it is no reassurance at all.
	That is my worry about what the Minister said. He was very clear and unequivocal, for which I thank him, but it alarmed me that his defence was, "We'll ask the committee." Even if the committee proposes 80 per cent., we might not get it, and that is not enough reassurance for me.
	Barely can we open our newspapers without reading another report stressing the urgency of faster and deeper action than is in the Bill. Only last weekend, the Stockholm Network study said that on present policies we will miss our climate change goals in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. We need to go deeper, further and faster, but the worry is that we are relying on outdated science. If there were no number, there might be an argument. One might say, "The number is constantly moving," but the Government—quite rightly, in my view—decided to include a number in the Bill. If we are going to have a number in the Bill, it ought to be the right one, not the wrong one that everyone accepts is wrong but hopes someone will put right later. That should not be the basis on which we legislate.
	We have already heard from the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about some of the problems that will occur if we do not address climate change: the massive environmental migration, the flooding in some areas and the droughts in others, the impact on biodiversity and the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world being hardest hit. Because of that, and because I believe that many Members from all parts of the House are committed to going deeper, further and faster, we have today launched a campaign called CanvassYourMP.com, which is the reverse of the normal model whereby we canvass our constituents. The website went live today. Last week, I got together a group of—I feel a song coming on—10 green bloggers, sitting in a room here at Westminster, to ask, "How can we empower individuals who want climate change action but feel that they cannot get through?" They are the individuals who send the postcard and receive the standard reply from the parties, but feel that the message is not getting through.
	CanvassYourMP.com has been put together by volunteers, and it is even hosted on a wind-powered web server, which is a nice touch. Every Member is listed on the site, and every Member's contacts details and surgery announcements are being posted. We would welcome to the site every Member from every party stating their position on the 80 per cent. issue. We want constituents to go in person, to talk to Members and to tell them about the issue. Many Members from all parts of the House support 80 per cent., and I would very happily put all their pledges on to the site. We want to get together a popular movement to convey to Ministers in particular the strength of public opinion.

Gavin Strang: Surely no challenge facing the world today is more urgent than that of climate change. About 20 years ago, the intergovernmental panel on climate change was set up. I think that the IPCC reflects the scientific position in the world today, notwithstanding some of the comments that we have heard during the debate. The excellent assessment report that it published last year concluded that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, with many natural systems now affected. It reported that there is now greater than 90 per cent. certainty that most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-20th century was caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activity. The panel states that, with varying degrees of likelihood, human influence has contributed to a range of changes, including sea level rises, changes in wind patterns, a greater risk of heat waves, an increased area affected by drought and a higher frequency of heavy precipitation events.
	The human, ecological and economic cost of doing nothing would be enormous. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, recently took evidence from Lord Adair Turner, who is still chair of the shadow Committee on Climate Change, whatever the future may hold. He put up a most impressive performance in front of my Committee, and it would be a great pity if he moves away from that position. He stated succinctly that a temperature rise of 3° C would be "really worrying" and that one of 4° C would be "very scary indeed." We can look to the IPCC report to see the outcomes that such temperature increases would bring. Many parts of the world would see coastal and flash flooding, while many would suffer from drought. Agricultural production would be severely compromised in many areas, especially in Africa, and species would face extinction. Of course, the poorest countries will be hit earliest and hardest by climate change, though they have done little to cause the problem.
	The most important recent UK publication on climate change has undoubtedly been the Stern report. Lord Stern concluded that the economic damage done by failing to tackle climate change could, as the Minister said, rival the great depression and the world wars and would be difficult or impossible to reverse. The great achievement of Nicholas Stern's report was to show us that the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs, and that if the investments are made wisely those costs will be manageable. Lord Stern found that the annual cost of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations at 500 to 550 parts per million of CO2 equivalent would be around 1 per cent. of gross domestic product by 2050—a economic price that is significant but manageable, and small relative to the costs and risks of the climate change that need to be avoided. As the science moves forward, we must consider whether it is enough for the world to seek to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations at 500 to 550 parts per million of CO2 equivalent, or whether we must aim lower still. The long-term objective must be to drive greenhouse gas emissions down to the level that the Earth can absorb. Lord Stern advised that that would mean a cut of more than 80 per cent. in the absolute level of current annual emissions. The UK has made progress against its targets, and the Government should take credit for our being on track to meet the Kyoto target.
	We must also look at current trends and where they will take us. UK greenhouse gas emissions are no longer declining; our emissions have been on a plateau for the last few years, largely due to ever-increasing emissions from transport. If the UK is to do what is necessary to play our part in preventing catastrophic climate change, we have to take stronger action. There is a sense in the House today that we will have to go down that road—there has been an impressive consensus and the Minister showed great flexibility in opening the debate. He made it clear that the Government are prepared to listen, and the Opposition are also part of that consensus.
	The Bill will enshrine our longer-term greenhouse gas emission targets into law, including the commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. But the science has changed, and the IPCC report did not go into some of the risks that could mean that the situation is more serious than the percentages indicate—what have been described as feedback loops and tipping points. We could get to a point where things begin to accelerate and to get out of control. An example of a feedback loop given by scientists is the melting of the polar ice caps. At the moment, solar radiation and heat bounces off the ice and is not absorbed, but with the melting of the ice, the sun's heat will be absorbed by the darker water of the ocean. That adds to the problem by creating temperature rises, and more ice melts as a consequence. Such feedback loops mean that there is a worry that things could get less predictable than the IPCC's report suggests.
	The maximum level of greenhouse gas concentration possible before the world is at significant risk of catastrophic temperature rise is lower than we previously thought. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members believe that we should commit to reducing emissions from 1990 levels by 80 per cent. by 2050. Reference has already been made to the fact that international aviation and shipping are excluded and I will not dwell on that. There is a will in the House that we must address the issue. It is complicated, but that is not a justification for not seeking to incorporate such emissions in our target. It will leave a huge hole in our approach if we do not do that, which is particularly the case in aviation. Shipping is also obviously a serious matter, but aviation emissions are growing rapidly.
	As electricity generation is the UK's largest single producer of carbon dioxide emissions, I am sure that the House will want to consider the means of making our electricity production less environmentally damaging. In that context, we should welcome the statement by the Crown Estate last week that 11 areas of the sea bed around the UK are being designated for offshore wind turbines. There is a growing momentum behind the development of wind power, but we must not concentrate just on that. Other important renewable sources offer tremendous potential for producing energy, such as tidal power, sea barriers, solar and geothermal energy, which will all have to be exploited. We have to be prepared to encourage investment and to invest directly in the securing of more of our electricity from those sources.
	The global use of fossil fuels is still expanding. Given the rapid growth in the number of power stations, especially coal-fired stations, in countries such as China, we need to have carbon capture and storage up and running urgently or we will have little or no chance of keeping temperature rises within tolerable levels. That point was made by Lord Adair Turner in his evidence to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Here in the UK, coal is still the source of about a third of our electricity, and new plant is planned. It was a pity that the co-operation with BP on the carbon capture and storage facility at Peterhead did not develop, but it is important that Britain takes the opportunity to develop the expertise needed, which will be economically beneficial to us in the medium to long term. While the Government's competition for a full-scale demonstration plant for CCS is welcome, the winning plant will not be built until 2014, and even then the CCS element need not be fully operational. The response to the potential of CCS should be on a larger scale and of greater urgency. Given the associated higher costs, CCS will need ongoing support.
	In conclusion, this is one of those pleasant days in the House of Commons when there is a consensus. We know that the Government have taken an important initiative, and people have acknowledged that, in a sense, they are a world leader. That is not to say that the Bill cannot be improved. There is a will in all parties to improve it even more. As has been pointed out, very fairly, targets are important and we want to get them right, but at the end of the day, the crunch will come when we decide how to rise to the challenge of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Tim Yeo: The results achieved by the Liberal Democrats at that time clearly show that they were regarded as freakish.
	This Bill is very important, and it should help to maintain Britain's international leadership of the climate change debate. That leadership was of course established originally by Baroness Thatcher in her famous speech almost two decades ago. She was the first Head of Government of any serious country in the world to address the issue of climate change. That leadership role has been maintained under successive Governments of both parties. What has changed since 1993 is our understanding of climate change. It has been transformed. The science now makes clear, in a compelling way, that the threat is far bigger and more urgent not to the planet, which will certainly survive, but to the survival of a recently arrived species on the planet—human beings.
	The economics are also better understood. I pay warm tribute to Lord Stern, whose report has helped to maintain Britain's influence on the subject internationally. His report shows that action today would be far cheaper and more cost effective than action taken in five or 10 years' time. I welcome the Bill, and I shall comment on one or two of its detailed provisions in a moment. First, it is important to remember—in the spirit of cross-party consensus, I think that the Liberal Democrat spokesman made this point—that in passing the Bill we must not ignore some other rather uncomfortable facts, one of which is that Britain, in common with every other country in the world, is not even remotely near achieving the sort of pathway towards the extent of greenhouse gas cuts necessary if we are to get anywhere near meeting the targets in the Bill, let alone those that may be decided necessary in future. In energy, transport and the built environment, low-carbon technology is available but not used. We clearly need more low-carbon electricity generation, but it looks as though Britain will build a new coal- fired power station before a new nuclear power station. That is extraordinary. We need more incentives to encourage distributed generation, such as micro-combined heat and power and so on. Huge opportunities are still being ignored.
	On surface transport, low-emission cars and trucks are available today, but the incentives to switch to them remain grossly inadequate. While other countries, such as France and Spain, have or are rolling out high-speed rail networks, Britain builds new airports and does not invest in the sort of high-speed rail links that would transform our domestic transport industry.

Tim Yeo: I am delighted to respond to the hon. Gentleman, who is a close and highly valued colleague on my Committee. I strongly support—and have consistently supported—a switch to much higher VED rates for new cars. That is a direct incentive when people replace their vehicle for them to switch to a low-carbon alternative. I believe that my Front-Bench colleagues share that position. We believe that the changes that the Chancellor announced this year for new vehicles are fully justified and will provide a strong incentive. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman drives a Smart car. I am happy to say that I have a liquefied petroleum gas taxi parked in the Members' car park. It is not only cheap to run but free of the congestion charge.
	Energy efficiency standards for the built environment are being tightened only slowly. Incentives to decarbonise the existing housing stock and, indeed, other existing buildings, are notable by their almost complete absence. Again, the technology is available.
	The three sectors—electricity generation, transport and the built environment—account for a huge proportion of emissions. We could take steps today, with no disruption to people's lifestyles and little cost to the overall economy, even in the short term, and some benefit in the long term, to increase greatly the change to a low-carbon economy, but we are not doing that.
	I am delighted that the Minister shares my view of the importance of the interim target. What we do between now and 2020 is far more important than arguing about whether the 2050 target should be 60 per cent., 80 per cent. or even 95 per cent. The next decade or so will define whether we limit the global temperature rise to an average of 2° C. If we do not make progress soon, the action needed will be far more expensive, disruptive and uncomfortable for people in all parts of the world. I will seek to toughen the 26 per cent. target for 2020 in clause 6.
	I want to endorse the concerns about the continued exclusion of aviation and shipping from greenhouse gas calculations. That makes no sense. The arguments have been well rehearsed. I know the answer on aviation—it will come into the EU emissions trading scheme in due course—but we have no idea about whether the date that the Minister has in mind will be achieved or the terms on which aviation will be included. It is all pie in the sky at this stage. We should make a commitment in Britain to take a lead and say that aviation and shipping should be included.
	A great deal of faith has been placed in the wisdom of the Committee on Climate Change and I hope that it lives up to it. I was dismayed when I read of Lord Turner's appointment to the Financial Services Authority. In conversation last week, he told me that he does not expect to stay on as chairman of the committee beyond next February. That is a pity, although he may remain a member. I hope that the Government will give their urgent attention to finding a replacement who commands the same respect in business and politics. In a spirit of bipartisanship, perhaps the Government should consult the Opposition about the appointment of a successor. Indeed, my Committee would be happy to make some suggestions, too.
	Although I acknowledge that Britain must decarbonise its economy, the overriding need in the next decade is to cut emissions globally. The benefit to the planet is equal from any cut in emissions, regardless of where it is achieved. I am therefore much more relaxed than some of my colleagues in this House and the other place about letting developed countries buy, in the short term, carbon credits to meet the targets abroad. That may be the fastest and most cost-effective way in which to cut emissions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey was measured about personal carbon trading when it was raised in an intervention. He knows that I support the concept and that my Committee has just published a report about it. I was dismayed that the Government appear to have dropped their interest in the subject. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), was positive and engaged in the debate about it. I regret that the Government have put it on the backburner. At the very least, it is surely worth examining in more detail. It is complicated and has some difficulties, but it could be the single most powerful incentive for individuals to make low-carbon choices in a range of daily decisions.
	I strongly support the Bill because it is good for Britain and the world. Countries at the forefront of tackling climate change do the right thing not only environmentally but economically. Decarbonising our economy, especially our transport infrastructure, will give Britain a huge competitive advantage. It is not some terrible burden that we have to bear, but something that will give us a head start economically. It is right to encourage and incentivise businesses to offer their customers low-carbon alternative products and services. As long as the regulations involved recognise the industry's investment, even forcing them to make that switch could be beneficial for business.
	I will not only support the Bill, but try to strengthen it, though I wish to make it clear to the Whips that I do not want to do that as a member of the Standing Committee—I will reserve my strength for Report. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

David Maclean: I rise to support the Bill. I want to concentrate my remarks largely on clause 11, paying particular attention to the international matters that the Secretary of State must take into account when setting carbon targets; and on clause 13, which states that any proposals and policies prepared to meet our carbon budget should "contribute to sustainable development". If I have time, I shall also say a little about waste reduction. I mention that to ensure that I remain in order when I mention the passionate subject of rain forests, which are part of the overall sustainable development plan and play a key role in dealing with climate change.
	It is almost 16 years to the day since I last addressed this subject. I quote from  The New York Times of 7 June 1992:
	"Diplomats attending the Earth Summit said today that they had achieved a broad consensus in favor of setting up a high-level watchdog group to insure that governments respect the pledges they make here...'There is growing acceptance that the follow-up to the Rio summit should be entrusted to a Sustainable Development Commission,' said Britain's Environment Minister, David Maclean, a leader of the push for the new agency. 'It will be a forum for peer pressure that will identify gaps and problems.'"
	I quote that because I want to emphasise to the Government that concern about climate change did not start in 1997. With the nicest will in the world, the Government tend to think that all history began in 1997. However, in 1992 I had the privilege of leading for the Government at Rio, doing most of the negotiations until, as usual, the Prime Minister arrived in the last few days to sign up to all the things that we had agreed.
	A few weeks later, I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of the European Community at the plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly, where I said:
	"Unless we proceed rapidly to the implementation of the progress we made in Rio, the hours we spent on negotiation will all be for naught."
	I went on to describe
	"the progress made within the EC towards implementation of the commitments made in Rio. At the European Council in Lisbon after the Earth Summit,"
	we
	"committed to an eight-point plan including: stabilizing CO2 emissions at the 1990 level by the year 2000; ratification of the Climate Change Convention by the end of 1993; early ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity; preparation of national biodiversity strategies; an international review process for the statement on forest principles by the CSD; and EC support for the establishment of an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee".
	Again, those matters were all set up before we had the Kyoto protocol. Of course we support what was achieved at Kyoto, but I remind the House once again that the previous Government were there; we got the T-shirt about cutting carbon emissions long before many people realise.
	When I reported to the UN, I was very keen that we adopt the schedule on forest principles that was devised at Rio. I hope that we are successful in meeting our targets. I will not enter into the debate—I may not be fortunate enough to serve on the Committee—about whether the target should be 60 per cent., 80 per cent. or even 100 per cent. What came across strongly to me at the meetings I held at Rio as a new Minister in the then Department of the Environment was that the G77, incorporating our Commonwealth links, and the G7, including our American friends, depended on Britain as the key player to help persuade others. Britain played a key role. We still have the lead and are internationally respected on these matters, and we must not lose it. What came across to me loud and clear was that many of the principal nations of the G77—China, India, the tiger economies—believed that climate change was an excuse for the developed world to hold them back. They said, "You only want us to sign up to these binding targets so that you, the western world, can maintain your primacy in development and we, the third world, will not be allowed to catch up." Many of them made it very clear that they would sign up to climate change measures only if we, the developed world, would give them something in return. It struck me then that we had to do more on carbon sinks, afforestation and reafforestation.
	I understand that part of the mechanisms in the Bill will provide for carbon credits and the marketing of carbon sinks. Some of the argument for carbon sinks has fallen into disrepute, perhaps because some of the carbon sinks traded as credits are not genuine or viable. There is nothing moral or right about cutting down millions of hectares of Brazilian rain forest, Papua New Guinea forest or forests in Malaysia and Indonesia to plant millions of acres of palm oil in order to produce biofuels. Those are not genuine carbon sinks. I totally support trading of carbon credits for pristine, virgin rain forests, as I am desperately concerned that we are losing biodiversity at an alarming rate. That is also part of the Bill's aims, although it is not specifically mentioned. Sustainable development is, I suppose, as close as we come to maintaining biodiversity.

Colin Challen: I, too, welcome the Bill, which shows genuine leadership on climate change. Indeed, that leadership has brought about a degree of consensus in the House. I welcome the Bill because it imposes a legal duty on the Government to continue to work on the mitigation of climate change, even when in future we may encounter more political pressure for adaptation: the two should not, of course, be juxtaposed. We all know, however, that if we told constituents that we were going to solve their flooding problems by putting up a wind farm, they would laugh in our faces and demand immediate action—on the grounds of adaptation—to address their particular concern.
	I welcome most, if not all, of the amendments made in the other place. They have strengthened the Bill, but it needs further strengthening. In saying that, I refer Members to the words of Dr. James Hansen who, as many will know, works for NASA at the Goddard space research centre. He said:
	"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
	At the moment, the Bill is predicated on business assumptions that will take us well over 550 parts per million and possibly into the region of 700 parts per million CO2 equivalent in the atmosphere.
	Many Members have referred to budgeting to deal with this most serious problem. Bearing in mind such extremely serious figures, I also refer Members to work done by the Tyndall Centre, which has contributed a wealth of information to us, including to the Environmental Audit Committee. It has calculated that if we wanted a pathway that stood even a 30 per cent. chance of not exceeding the 2° C threshold, the UK would have to cut its total carbon emissions by 70 per cent. by 2030 and by about 90 per cent. by 2050. That illustrates the seriousness of the issue of cumulative concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. If we cannot grip the problem early, we will lose out in the long term. Although I support much tougher long-term targets, from which we can back-cast and figure out where we need to be eventually, early targeting and cuts must bite into the cumulative target-setting process.
	Clause 3 refers to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report, "Energy—the Changing Climate", published in 2000, which is seen as a base point for our thinking on climate change. Adoption of the contraction and convergence model was implicit in that report. Some Members might think that I sound a bit like a cracked record, but it is worth stating—the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) touched on the matter briefly—that one cannot arrive at a figure, whether 50, 60 or 80 per cent., without a distribution of the responsibility for tackling climate change. We cannot simply say that the science tells us that the globe must have an average cut of, say, 50 per cent. by 2050, and that that just happens to be our share. We should ask how we arrive at our share. The RCEP report in 2000 considered the various options, calculations and methodologies, and concluded that contraction and convergence were the most elegant and most likely to succeed.
	"Contraction and convergence" is not a phrase that the Government like to use much. I suspect that the reason for that is that one does not necessarily want to set out one's entire stall before going into an international negotiation. Just as we are showing leadership with this Bill, and taking action before any other Parliament in the world, we should go to Poznan later this year, and Copenhagen next year, and back the implicit principle that underpins our Bill. If people ask us what the report says, and we scratch our heads thinking, "We can't mention contraction and convergence, which underpins our whole thinking, as that might reveal our hand," we will not follow through the leadership that the Bill represents.
	Thankfully, many more people than perhaps even a year or two ago are coming round to such a way of thinking. Tony Blair now talks about per capita emissions rights being equalised, possibly at 2 tonnes per person globally, although it depends on the rise in global population. Nick Stern, who said in his report that he could not quite get his head around contraction and convergence, now talks about a pragmatic right to the equalisation on a per capita basis of emissions. In January this year, the Prime Minister went to India for the UK-India summit and agreed with the Indian Government that the principle of convergence is very important and deserves serious attention. In Australia, Professor Ross Garnaut, who produced his interim report on climate change on behalf of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, also strongly supports the contraction and convergence principle, arguing in favour of per capita rights to greenhouse gas emissions around the planet.
	It is time that we urged the Government to consider the principle once again, and to make clear in a new clause in the Bill their methodology for arriving at a figure. Until they produce their methodology, they will always be open to the accusation that they are plucking figures out of thin air. If they do not do so, the independent climate change committee, if it is to be asked to bring forward figures, should be under a duty to produce its methodology.
	The Bill provides for a duty, but how will we know that it is being taken seriously? The Bill does not provide the means for delivery. A new clause should also be introduced that requires the Treasury to report annually on the effort of UK plc to deliver on the targets under the Bill. As we know, Nick Stern said that it will cost less to avoid the problem if we spend a bit now. In his report, the actual figures—working on the basis of up to 550 parts per million—are that spending 1 per cent. of GDP might avoid 5 to 20 per cent. of damage to GDP down the line. As I said, that 1 per cent. is predicated on a possible 550 parts per million concentration in the atmosphere. If we are talking about a 2° C limit on the increase, many people now know that 550 parts per million is totally over the top. A 4° C or even 5° C increase is more likely. The Government were presented with that science in Exeter, before the Gleneagles conference.
	Clearly, we should be considering a greater spend. According to Nick Stern, if we wanted to aim for between 450 and 500 parts per million, the cost would be 3 per cent. of GDP. In 2006, when his report was published, that would have been nearly £40 billion—obviously, 1 per cent. is about £13 billion. Have we spent anything like £13 billion, year on year, on tackling the problem? No, obviously not; not even half that, I suspect, although working out what we spend is extremely complex—is it a gross or net figure?
	The Treasury, not the piddling Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb); I do not necessarily agree with his assessment, but it is certainly not an assessment that one could make of the Treasury, the least piddling Government Department—should have a duty under the Bill to report annually on the effort of UK plc to deliver on its targets. I hope that other Members will join me in supporting that principle on Report.
	With that couple of small caveats, I very much welcome the Bill and hope that it will proceed with all-party support.

John Gummer: Indeed. That is another aspect of our being one world in a practical sense, rather than just in theory.
	What we must do about climate change is very much in line with what we must do anyway in a world that is living beyond its resources. When there are more middle-class people in India than there are in Europe, as is the case today, demands on resources are such that we must find a way of living more leanly. We must also be honest about the need to follow the best science. Conservative Members and others will argue that this or that scientist does not agree with what is being said, but such an approach is rather like trying to judge Christianity by what the Jehovah's Witnesses say. It is not a sensible approach if our aim is to make a real assessment of the views of those who actually represent the best science.
	We should see this as an opportunity, not as a threat. The Minister may have heard me say earlier that I was prepared to support the Government's proposals for public transport in Manchester, and I hope she will not think it unfair when I say now that there are many instances in which the Government have not led, in factual terms, the life that their theory leads us to believe they ought to lead. For instance, this is a Government who clung to the dark ages in fighting to retain hydrofluorocarbons against the wishes of other members of the European Union. This is a Government who have still not introduced smart metering. This is a Government who had no energy policy at all for 10 years, which is why we are so late in producing nuclear power. I look forward to having Sizewell C, but I would have liked it 10 years ago, and I would have liked a planning system that enabled my constituents at least to express their views about a new road, if we are to have one.
	It is hard to take the Government's green credentials seriously when they want another runway at Stansted, and do not recognise that one in five flights from London are to places which, in terms of time, are equally well served by trains. That is not a sensible way in which to deal with aviation.
	This is also the Government who introduced eco-towns, which are neither "eco" nor proper towns. They have no proper credibility in terms of sustainability, because they do not accord with any modern concept of a sustainable town. Again, the Government have used a phrase that makes it difficult for us to oppose what they are doing. I know exactly what they will say: they will say "He cannot be very environmental, because he is against eco-towns." I would be in favour of eco-towns if "eco" and "town" meant what they seem to mean, just as I would be in favour of a climate change levy if it had anything to do with climate change.
	The independent Committee on Climate Change will have to bring home to the Government that we cannot undermine our environmental reputation by introducing taxes that we pretend are green when in fact they are not. No taxation can be called green unless it either replaces some other taxation, or has a direct effect that will lead to more green activity. There must be a justification for taxes: if we do not have that, we shall undermine everything in which we believe, which is why the independent committee is so important.
	I hope the Government have noted that the independent committee will have just as strong an effect on the Opposition as on the Government. If the Opposition wish to tell the Government that some rather uncomfortable decision must not be made, they must provide an alternative. They cannot simply attack the Government; they must reveal what they would do. That will be true of the next Opposition as it will be true of the next Government. When we change sides, we shall both be caught by the committee, and it is right for that to happen.
	I hope that the committee will recognise the importance of thinking in terms of rewards rather than penalties. I do not think the Government are right to believe that the way to encourage people is to punish them. The way to encourage people is to give them the information that they need, which is why I think that smart metering is vital. If someone has to climb under the stairs to find the meter and it then says something in kilowatt hours that they do not understand, it will not affect the way that they behave. The Government must acknowledge that smart metering is a crucial part of providing what we need to provide—information—and also that it is important to encourage people.
	The Government must show people in this country that encouragement is continuous and not short-term. The Treasury must specify the long-term parameters by which British industry can meet the demands of climate change, and provide British industry with the leadership that will put us in an economically favourable position. That cannot be done by a Government who are not prepared to introduce long-term tax breaks.
	There are two more ways in which the Bill can help us. Many of my colleagues have mentioned the need for action to be taken quickly and urgently. The more we do now, the better it will be. The cost of now is considerably less than the cost of tomorrow. We need annual targets, because that is more important at this end than long-term targets rising from 60 to 80 per cent. I am an 80 per cent. man—I have no problems about voting for that, and the Government should not think that Tories will not vote for it—but it is not the most important thing. The most important thing is what the Government do between now and the election, and what the next Government do between that election and the one after that. If we constantly establish targets that are beyond the period of a Parliament, Governments will put things off. I am cynical enough to believe that that is an all-party comment.
	This needs to be a world issue, and we need to show leadership. I speak not in a spirit of party-political argument, but simply in a spirit of trying to get things done. We cannot take seriously any Government who do not use the European Union, and lead it to take the steps for shipping and aircraft that the Government should have taken and have left for far too long. We cannot take seriously a Government who are not seen to be on the front foot in every international negotiation, rather than looking as though they are being dragged into everything.
	I have considerable respect for the Minister for the Environment, but it is a great pity that he did not begin his litany with the information that this is an all-party operation. It was begun by Mrs. Thatcher, and subsequently my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) fought for a climate change Bill when the Government were saying that they did not want one. The Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and Friends of the Earth had to launch a joint battle to persuade the Government to change their position. Now that they have changed it, can we all stand shoulder to shoulder and make it work?
	If we are to make it work, we need two key things. First, we need targets that are immediate, and that is why I think that annual targets are important. Secondly, we need a system of trading that enables the rich countries to help the poor ones to play their part. We cannot say that this is putting off our duty, for it is the only mechanism whereby we can meet the need for social justice, without which there will be no ability to beat climate change. Climate change makes us one world: it gives rise to a global demand for a global solution. The people of Britain and all the rich countries will have to recognise at long last that social justice alone will deliver.

Michael Meacher: Along with everyone else, I strongly welcome the Bill. I also welcomed the patient and skilful manner in which it was introduced by my hon. Friend the Minister.
	The latest figures show that greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by about 18 per cent. since 1990, although carbon dioxide emissions have marginally increased in several years during the last decade. There are two important caveats: first, that—as many people have said, and as the Prime Minister acknowledged in a speech on 19 November last year—the reduction required by 2050 must be at least 80 per cent. rather than 60 per cent. if there is to be headroom for developing countries to expand their economies while keeping within the overall global 2° C increase limit, which scientists say should not be exceeded without risk to the planet. On that basis, I draw the sobering conclusion that an 80 per cent. reduction by 2050 requires an annual reduction in emissions of at least almost twice the rate of the past two decades.
	The second caveat is that—as, again, many have said—the Bill ignores the UK's share of international aviation emissions, which Department of Trade and Industry figures show already account for 12.5 per cent., or one eighth, of the total UK impact on global warming. Indeed, I regret to have to say that because the Government are proposing to triple airport capacity, the Environmental Audit Committee calculates that by 2050 UK aviation emissions—let alone UK shipping emissions—might amount to almost half of all UK emissions. In introducing the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister questioned the practicalities of including that data. I say to him that it would be entirely practical to include international aviation emissions in the Bill: the UK already reports on them regularly under the Kyoto protocol, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has figures dating back to 1970 on how much fuel has been taken on board at UK airports.
	However—and this is where I disagree with some Members' contributions—even if aviation emissions are included in the Bill, another loophole still needs to be closed. At present, the Bill allows 100 per cent. of emission reduction targets to be met by buying carbon credits from abroad rather than by reducing emissions in the UK. I am in no way against using genuine carbon credits that have been earned abroad promoting clean development in other countries, but this is a question of balance, and there are two relevant arguments. One is that, unfortunately, the purchase of carbon credits overseas is sometimes open to highly dubious manipulation over the vexed issues of additionality and baselines; they are complex and can easily be manipulated, and there is clear evidence of considerable abuse. The second argument, which is the clincher, is that we will succeed in stopping climate change, or the worst affects of it, given the stage we have now reached, only if we in the west, who are primarily responsible for it as a result of our industrialisation over the past two centuries, can persuade developing countries—largely China and India, which alone have two fifths of the world's population—that we are serious about tackling climate change. Buying all our credits from abroad simply will not persuade those countries that we are serious if at the same time we are taking an unsustainable path in our own country. That will produce only cynicism and resistance.
	The fact is that the rich countries, with approximately 18 per cent. of the world's population, are responsible for 54 per cent. of global emissions—three times our due share. Until that is dealt with, we will simply not get international co-operation, without which theentire climate change problem cannot be solved. We are 1 per cent. of the world population and account for 2 per cent. of global emissions. Even with Europe, we are a small part of the picture. This has to be global, and we have to persuade the rest of the world that we are deadly serious about tackling the problem.

Michael Meacher: I entirely agree—and, as so often, the right hon. Gentleman anticipates something I was going to say a little later.
	We should in this Bill impose a reasonable limiting cap on the buying of carbon credits abroad to meet UK emission targets. Indeed, that was precisely one of the caveats that led a United Nations human development report issued in the last year to say:
	"If the rest of the developed world followed the pathway envisaged in the United Kingdom's Climate Change Bill, dangerous climate change would be inevitable."
	That is a very sobering reminder. This is a good Bill, but it is certainly not ambitious enough.
	That sober conclusion is given additional force by the fact that the Climate Change Bill is only a part, and probably a small part, of the UK's overall strategy to combat climate change, and the rest of the strategy needs to be reviewed to see whether it is fit for purpose. I thought that some of it was now being brought into line. I thought that the Government accepted the amendment in another place providing powers for the Government to introduce mandatory reporting standards for carbon emissions by business. The need for that is overwhelming, as is shown by the carbon disclosure survey, which found last year that fewer than half of the FTSE 350 companies provided quantitative emissions data. Support for mandatory carbon reporting now comes from the CBI, the Aldersgate Group and a wide range of leading blue-chip companies and leading investors. Following my hon. Friend the Minister's rather equivocal comments on this at the end of his speech, I ask the Government to look again at the matter, and to endorse clause 80 and not to seek in any way to water it down, but in time to extend it.
	Further improvement is urgently needed in other aspects of the armoury of instruments to combat climate change. The Government must wean themselves off their continuing obsession with fossil fuels. It sometimes seems to me that the left hand in DEFRA does not know what the right hand in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is doing—or at any rate cannot stop it. It is extraordinary to respond to soaring oil and gas prices by—as we have seen in the past few weeks—trying to increase the supply of oil from the North sea where the prospects, in a state of continuing decline, must be virtually nugatory, and by making an increased commitment to nuclear, which is highly controversial in this House, and which, whatever one thinks about it, is not relevant as, quite apart from the other problems, it takes 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear reactor, rather than by taking the obvious long-term sustainable route: the fastest feasible expansion of renewables in this country. It is almost incredible that although we probably have more renewable capacity in this country than in any other in Europe, we are at bottom of the league in electricity regeneration from renewables—just 4 per cent. compared with 10 to 25 per cent. in Germany, France and Italy and 30 to 50 per cent. in Scandinavia.
	We now have an EU mandatory target to provide 15 per cent. of all our energy from renewables by 2020, which is bound to mean that we have to produce at least 40 per cent. of it from electricity generation, yet it seems to me that DBERR spends its time not trying to meet the target but dreaming up ways to get round it in Brussels. What we need from the Government—from all the Government—is a precise strategy on exactly how they are going to meet that 15 per cent. target.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend raises some very interesting issues with which historically I confess I had something to do. I will talk to him afterwards, rather than using the very limited time that I have available, but he has a very good point.
	I come to another DBERR failing, and to Kingsnorth and carbon capture and storage. No new coal-burning station should be licensed without carbon capture and storage. To be fair, the Government hinted at this, but as a result of lobbying that was supported in the media, they appear—I am not sure about this—to be backtracking. I have to point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is not enough to say that the plant will be CCS capable, because that simply postpones it indefinitely. Will he confirm that the Government will not license Kingsnorth without a requirement that CCS be installed and operated from the start?
	There are several other issues. Building eco-houses is fine, but what about the other 99 per cent. of the stock? What about replacing renewable obligation certificates with feed-in tariffs? This is an excellent Bill but it needs to be improved.

Tony Baldry: The speech of the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) demonstrates that this debate cannot be just about targets; it also has to be about ensuring that this and other Governments have a coherent energy policy.
	None of us chooses when we are born, so none of us chooses the challenges that face us during our lifetime. However, the challenge of climate change is probably the most serious that faces us as decision-takers, legislators and politicians. This Bill is therefore probably going to be the most important in this Parliament, and as one of a number of us who today mark having been in the House for 25 years, having been elected on this day in 1983, I can think of few Bills that have had an equal potential to contribute to the common wealth and the common good.
	As I said in an earlier intervention, if anything the published science may well underestimate the urgency of the problem. Professor Spicer, a constituent of mine, of the centre for research at the Open university, says that
	"the IPCC reports are designed to be internationally palatable"
	and
	"they also tend to be highly conservative. For example, the most recent Working Group 1 report admits that it deliberately ignores the most recent findings documenting the accelerating loss of ice from the Greenland ice cap and that overall ice dynamics are poorly understood. Consequently the problem of future sea level rise is downplayed despite the fact that this is likely to cause considerable economic, social and political disruption because much of the world's population live in major port cities. More disturbing is that the very climate models used to predict the future are themselves conservative: they are anchored in the present and seem incapable of reproducing the patterns and process of climate change that the geological record tells us has happened in the past."
	This is an important Bill not because, as is clear from the science and the IPCC, these matters are extremely urgent but because we have a moral duty to take action. In the last Parliament, the International Development Select Committee, of which I, the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) and others were members, undertook a lengthy inquiry into climate change and sustainable development. Our conclusions, which were unanimous, were not earth shattering but some of them are worth reminding the House about:
	"Irreversible changes are occurring in our climate as concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rise....Human activity is accelerating climate change and the scale of the action needed to tackle it is unprecedented...We believe that the precautionary principle must underpin any approach to climate change and the consensus provided by the IPCC should provide the basis for action...Given their relative contribution, the burden of finding a solution to the problems posed by climate change should fall mainly on developed countries...The impacts of climate change will not be evenly spread across the globe and are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor...Climate change has the potential to increase further the inequality between developed and developing countries...Rising temperatures and changes in precipitation will place hundreds of millions of people additionally at risk from either hunger, water shortage, coastal flooding or malaria."
	We concluded:
	"The timescale is urgent and the UK and other donors have to take a lead in building capacity so that policy makers and politicians in developing countries can understand climate change in the context of the local issues facing their country, and translate that understanding into effective policies and mechanisms."
	It is crucial that, as with this Bill, we do take the lead. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, observed only recently that, as a newspaper report put it,
	"too many rich countries...had failed to take the action needed to convince the developing nations to sign up to a deal in Copenhagen next year that could help to stabilise global emissions."
	Whether we like it or not, it is us who will have to take the lead. Rajendra Pachauri said:
	"You may not be able to get an agreement in one shot, let's say by Copenhagen, that sets you on the path of stabilisation in keeping with some kind of long-term target...Looking at the politics of the situation, I doubt whether any of the developing countries will make any commitments before they have seen the developed countries take a specific stand."
	He said that there were "reasons for dismay" regarding the failure of rich countries to cut carbon emissions, and that
	"This really doesn't give anybody the conviction that those that had agreed to take action as the first step are really serious about doing so. And in several developing countries you get the feeling—in fact people state it very clearly—that these guys"—
	rich countries—
	"are going to shove the whole burden on to our shoulders. That's why it's necessary for the developed world to establish a certain credibility."
	I am vice-chairman of the all-party group on China, about which we have not heard very much today. A new coal-fired power station is coming on stream in China every couple of weeks. China is still classified as a developing country, and if we cannot convince it that we are genuine and for real about cutting our carbon emissions, there is absolutely no way we will get it—at Copenhagen or anywhere else—to sign up to binding targets that reduce its carbon emissions between now and 2050, or any other date.

Tony Baldry: As I think was said earlier, this whole area of climate change provides the UK with considerable opportunities to export our green, clean technology. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, said in his very good contribution, if British business gets there first, it does give us a competitive advantage, and that goes with the grain of being good.
	A number of reports have demonstrated that the impact of climate change is happening now, and I shall mention two of them briefly. A United Nations Environment Programme report of 2007 made clear the impact of climate change on Darfur, reiterating the linkages between the environmental degradation caused by global warming, resource scarcity and violent conflict among ethnic groups. The report argued that environmental issues have been, and continue to contribute to, causes of conflict. Sudan has the largest population of displaced persons in the world today, and it suffers from desertification, devastating droughts and land degradation. Some of those are seen as the result of regional climate change and the southward shift of the boundary between semi-desert and desert. Those of us who have been to Darfur can recognise what is actually happening there: in many ways, there is a competition between various groups for dwindling resources. That picture will be seen increasingly across the world if we do not take care.
	Interestingly, a new US military report, commissioned by the US Government and financed by the Centre for Naval Analyses, lays out strong support for a link between climate change and terrorism. Admiral Joseph Lopez, a former commander-in-chief of US naval forces in Europe and of allied forces in southern Europe, has said:
	"Climate change can provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror. In the long term, we want to address the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit, but climate change will prolong those conditions. It makes them worse."
	The report describes climate change as
	"a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world"
	—which will—
	"seriously exacerbate already marginal living standards in many Asian, African and Middle Eastern nations, causing widespread political instability and the likelihood of failed states".
	These are grim and serious issues, and I say to the Whips that because this is such a serious Bill, I shall gladly volunteer to serve on the Public Bill Committee. We should all make a contribution to this Bill.
	The final point that I wish to make relates to targets. Again, I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said about all the targets in this matter, not just the 2050 target; we are all workaday politicians and we recognise that because most of us will be dead by 2050, it is a lot easier for us to opine about a target for 2050 rather than making reference to a target for this Parliament or the next one. However, the targets do have—

Anne Snelgrove: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I believe that this is about not only Governments but how we get local people involved. I am not necessarily talking about those people who are approaching this subject zealously, but about those who are perhaps only dimly aware of climate change's effect on their lives. SCAN is one organisation working with local groups to ensure that everybody in Swindon understands climate change and why we all need to play a part in tackling it.
	Gina Adams from SCAN has said that although it welcomes the Government's Climate Change Bill, targets are just the start. It wants real progress to be made in reducing CO2 emissions and tackling climate change by both central and local government. Like me—it is not just Conservatives who want this—SCAN wants the target to rise from 60 to 80 per cent. However, I agree with some Members of the other House that it may be better not to prescribe a figure in the Bill; if we leave the figure at 60 per cent. and the Climate Change Committee subsequently changes it to another figure, that would bring into question the Government's commitment and our commitment in this House. We need to be clear about what we mean by our attempts to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and I hope that the Minister will be clearer about what he means on climate change targets. I was not clear as to what he was saying in his speech about 60 or 80 per cent., or the possibility of opting for a higher figure. He needs to give us more of an indication as to what he means, and I, too, hope that I will be able to follow that up in Committee.
	One argument that SCAN made was that people outside the Westminster bubble were unlikely to be inspired to cut carbon if those inside the bubble—us—are not able to do so. My private Member's Bill was all about that. The Government need to take a lead in showing how those targets will be achieved. If we want a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon, we will have to take radical steps to improve the efficiency of the way we live, particularly how we build our buildings. If we want an 80 per cent. reduction in carbon—that is supported by many in this House and many of my constituents—we will have to take even more radical steps. The aim of my private Member's Bill, which failed to reach Committee last week because of the objections of one particular Conservative Back Bencher—

Anne Snelgrove: I will name no names, because the Member concerned is not in his place.
	My Bill aimed to ensure that all new Government buildings were in the highest quartile of energy performance. I was very pleased to have had the support of not only the Government, but Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers, so it is a shame that the actions of one maverick stopped the Bill going into Committee.
	It is a modest request to make of the Government as it simply gives legal force to a commitment that has already been made in their own energy efficiency action plan. This is where I have to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, because he went the extra mile to ensure that both he and the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) were able to acquiesce to some of the demands in my Bill. I am very grateful for the patient work by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and his officials.
	I welcome the fact that as a result of this Bill the Government will have new powers to require public bodies to produce action plans on adaptation at the discretion of the Secretary of State and on many other things. I recognise the importance of the five local areas, but the Government should give a lead and show local councils that when procuring new buildings for the Government estate, they are aiming for the highest possible environmental standards. Without a commitment on the face of the Bill, Departments will continue not to pull their weight in the fight against climate change. Some 17 out of 21 Departments are not on track to meet their energy efficiency targets, and energy efficiency across the central Government estate has actually worsened by 3.3 per cent. since 2000. I proposed a modest change and I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will find some way to include it in the Bill.
	The Minister has said that the Bill is about leadership and that it should be about keeping promises. In recognition of their duty to lead by example, the Government committed in the energy efficiency action plan in 2004 to procure only buildings in the top quartile. The commitment covered Departments, executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies. To put that in perspective, there are currently around 100 executive agencies and more than 800 non-departmental public bodies. They include organisations as diverse as the Highways Agency, the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Royal Mint.
	The top quartile commitment was subsequently restated in the "Common Minimum Standards for the Procurement of Built Environments in the Public Sector", published by the Office of Government Commerce in September 2005. The most recent restatement of the commitment was in the 2007 energy White Paper. The promise to carry out this action has been made a number of times. However, the Environmental Industries Commission wrote to me earlier this month stating that in 2006-07 only 46 of 351 Government new build or refurbishment projects were even assessed for their environmental impact. The failure to ensure that major public building projects will be energy efficient and sustainable is a huge wasted opportunity and will undermine the Government's aim of making the UK one of the EU leaders in sustainable procurement. We can all see failure looming. Only if this Bill is amended to include a requirement that public buildings are procured in a better way can we stop that failure happening.
	As I said, the Bill is supported by hon. Members on both sides of the house and NGOs across the UK. Millions of people make up their memberships, and tens of millions make up their supporters. They will be watching this debate closely and I will make sure that its outcome is also reported to those who have written to me from my constituency.

David Howarth: I once had a PhD student who did her thesis on small island states, but I do not have time to go into the full issue that the Minister raises. However, it is a different point about the overall starting point for reductions, not the share. The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) was right to say that if the Government have accepted contraction and convergence, in the 60 per cent. figure, they must also accept it for any other figure that comes along. The Government have already accepted the principle and cannot go back on it.
	The second point is the connection between the 2° C figure and the 80 per cent. target. There is a logical connection between the two. If the Government accept —as a matter of policy rather than for legislative purposes—the 2° C target, they must also accept a target of 80 per cent. reduction or greater, because the probability is that we will not be able to hold world average temperature to a 2° C increase unless the reduction that is attributable to us under contraction and convergence is something like 80 per cent. The two issues are connected. Once the Government have accepted the 2° C figure as a matter of policy, they should accept the 80 per cent. figure, too. As hon. Members have said, the science has moved on. Many hon. Members will have seen the letter from another of my constituents, Sir Tom Blundell, which makes it absolutely clear what we are talking about and what action we should take. It is also true that there have been eight years of rising emissions between the RCEP report in 2000 and now. We have to make up for those eight years, as the emissions will be in the atmosphere for another century.
	Let me refer to another part of the Bill that has not been referred to much, although the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) mentioned it in part. There has been a change in the reporting provisions in the Bill, so the question of annual targets is rather different from what it was when we first discussed it. There is a five-year reporting period with an action plan, and a one-yearly indicative target reporting system whereby the committee makes a report and the Government respond to it. That is much better than when the Bill started, but it still needs to be strengthened. There needs to be some suggestion of an action plan that is possibly produced yearly but not necessarily each year. I would give the power to the committee to suggest to the Government that if they are so far off target for a particular year, they might consider bringing forward the date at which the action plan obligation comes into force.
	Another large issue is the question of the emissions for international aviation. Some 90 per cent. of the emissions from aviation in this country are caused by international aviation, while a very small proportion are caused by domestic aviation, which is included in the Bill. I point out to the Government that throughout the debate, from the consideration in the Joint Committee until now, the Government have said that it is too difficult to distinguish between the two, and there has been disagreement between the Department for Transport and DEFRA about how to do it. However, that cannot be the case, because the Government are already doing it: they answer parliamentary questions that ask them to distinguish between domestic and international emissions. It seems to me that the best thing for the Government to do would be to put the obligation in place now so that when they are required to go along that path in 2011-12 by the EU ETS, they will have to make a far smaller adjustment to their position than they would if they did nothing now and carried out the whole adjustment then.
	I have only one point to make on the international credits debate. A number of points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the argument, but my view is still that the big advantage that is alleged to flow from international trade is that it means that the cheapest options can be taken first. No one is told what options have to be taken over the whole period, because in the end they all have to be taken. In the end, states such as Britain are allowed to take cheaper options from abroad early on. That does not mean that they will not have to take expensive options later. Usually, it is quite a good thing to do it that way, but it is not always. In this particular case, if we take ourselves down the line of being a high-carbon economy and allow ourselves to take cheap options from other countries, we will be stuck in that economy. When the time came to take the expensive options, they would be even more expensive.
	The final improvement to the Bill to which I want to refer is clause 80. I think that I am the only Member who took part in both the Standing Committee that considered the Companies Act 2006 and the Joint Committee on this Bill. I will not go through the various struggles about the operating and financial reviews and the attempt to get the Government back to the position from which they started. It seems essential that if we are to create a market for ethical investment and consumption, we should have the strongest possible reporting requirements on companies. That dimension has not yet been mentioned. It is a way in which individuals can take part in the fight against climate change in their own lives, by making choices in the market. In the end, it is for all of us—both politicians and individuals—to play our part, and that is how it can be done.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the Bill; indeed, its principles have had a unanimous welcome. If they had not, we might as well have given up on combating climate change. Of course, there are issues of detail, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should be debated and tested. Some of the amendments made in the other place have been very helpful in trying to clarify and strengthen the Bill. However, I want to focus on a couple of points. The first is carbon reporting, which has been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). He and I are members of the Aldersgate Group, which has been a driving force behind the idea of carbon reporting.
	There has always been resistance in Government to the idea of more regulation. That is understandable, to a certain extent, but sometimes it reaches the point of irrationality. Regulation can sometimes be more efficient and can benefit industry and society. If I understand my hon. Friend the Minister correctly, he is saying that he accepts the principle that there should be some regulation of carbon reporting so that there is a standardised approach. That makes absolute sense. At the moment, although about 45 per cent. of top companies report on carbon, they use different criteria and assessments. That makes it almost impossible to compare and to see who is the better performer.
	The CBI climate change taskforce recommended that there should be a standard approach. It looks like that point, at least, has been accepted. At the CBI conference, delegates were asked whether they supported mandatory reporting, and 82 per cent. were in favour. If 82 per cent. of the CBI is in favour of a new regulation, why are we messing about in this way? I suspect that it is not my hon. Friend the Minister who is messing about. Sometimes, some parts of Government are more sympathetic than others to the idea of environmental regulation. However, the principle is sound and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it a little consideration during the passage of the Bill.
	Clause 80, which was inserted in the House of Lords, strikes me as a sensible clause. I would hope that my hon. Friend the Minister would make that a workable and effective clause. If we are to make real progress in addressing climatic change, we need a complete cultural shift in society. That shift must come at all levels—at a personal level, in industry, in the public sector and in the private sector. We have to do that.
	I agree with some of the points that were made about the need for this country to give leadership. This country has given leadership over many years in raising the issue, making the scientific arguments and offering a top-quality scientific base through the technical arguments. I have seen the respect that this country is given in international negotiations as recently as the meeting in Kobe of G8 Environment Ministers. We have influence and people look to us for a lead. There is no doubt that developing countries will not move unless they see the developed countries taking climate change seriously and putting in place the essential measures.
	On a small part of that cultural shift, I disagree with some of the comments about the measures on waste and recycling. We need maximum flexibility in how we deal with such things. There is an argument not only for charging—I take the argument that we do not have to charge, as we can also offer incentives—but for introducing more imaginative ways of encouraging people to recycle more. Recycling is about reducing energy, and reducing energy is about reducing emissions. We should not forget that. It does not help the all-party approach that has been talked about to attack such measures, just as it does not help to attack the idea of congestion charging. Some of the measures that we will have to put in place will not be easy and they will not always be popular, but they are part of the cultural change that we need.
	In that respect, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will try to make the Bill's capacity to accommodate new measures as flexible as possible. New measures will arise, and the Government will need to respond quickly and flexibly. This is an opportunity to pass empowering legislation that gives the Government that flexibility. There is a possibility of a range of actions. I very much support the idea of measures such as individual carbon allowances. I accept that its time has not yet come; it is a very radical approach. Nevertheless, elements of it could be applied to an aspect of our society, such as the purchasing of fuel or energy, for example. That also has the benefit of a very strong element of social justice, in the sense that those people who are not great energy users—whether petrol or other fuel—will have a financial advantage compared with those who are big energy users. We should not rule out such approaches; we need the flexibility to adapt.
	There may well be some movement on, for example, sectoral approaches—not exactly popular with many other countries around the world. However, that might address problems in our energy-intensive sectors, such as steel, that are exposed to global competition. It will do nothing for the environment if steelworks cannot compete in a global environment and their capacity simply switches from this country to a developing country. There would be no environmental gain. That is not to say that we should not encourage efficiencies, productivity and innovation, but perhaps a sectoral approach is one way of doing that, whereby technology transfer and energy-efficiency knowledge can be shared among sectors and developing countries can gain from the experience of developed countries. My hon. Friend the Minister knows all about the discussions that have taken place internationally on such issues. They are not easy, just as discussions on a global stabilisation goal are not easy, as he said, but that is a prerequisite to an overall target.
	I disagree with hon. Members who talked about absolute target figures, year on year. The idea of carbon budgets is a much better approach, because it gets into people's minds the way that we have to go: to budget for carbon, to put a value on carbon and for all of us to be aware of our impact. In that respect, I strongly support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) about the fact that there should be annual carbon budgets, which should be treated in the same way as the annual fiscal Budget, so that the Government's annual carbon budget for the country is open and transparent for the future.

Peter Lilley: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has given one of the most practical and realistic speeches in the debate so far. Having studied physics at Cambridge before going on to study economics, I approach the science and, to a greater extent, the economics of global-warming alarmism with a degree of scepticism. None the less, I am predisposed to curb hydrocarbon use and CO2 emissions because my scepticism may prove unwarranted; it is sensible to seek more secure and plentiful sources of energy, and we have a duty of stewardship to the planet.
	Above all, because I spent last year and the year before studying global poverty, it is clear to me that, if climate change is significantly man-made, the men and women who did not make it are the poor people of this world. Yet they will suffer most from it, and they more than anyone need to increase their energy consumption if they are to grow and prosper. So I accept that developed countries, including the UK, should bear a major share of the burden of prevention or adaptation to climate change. However, any measure that we introduce must pass two tests—the same two tests that we apply to any Bill. First, the benefits, even if they accrue to other people, must be greater than the costs, even if they are all incurred by us. Secondly, the measures must be effective, rather than just demonstrative.
	The Minister did not mention the final impact assessment, except in response to my intervention, yet it shows that both the costs and the benefits of the measures that he proposes are immense—so immense that it is astonishing that the House has got this far in the debate without considering them. According to the Government, the potential benefits lie in the range of £82 billion to £110 billion, but the potential costs lie in an even larger range, from £30 billion up to £205 billion. The net benefit, they say, could be £52 billion positive, but it could be as much as £95 billion negative.
	The Government admit that the method that they employ in their final impact assessment
	"cannot capture trade and competitiveness impacts...unable to capture transition costs...limited in its ability to capture the obstacles which make it more expensive (such as information and policy costs)... It may therefore be expected to produce lower-bound estimates of the costs of carbon abatement in 2050."
	In other words, their estimates are the lowest possible and ignore quite significant costs.
	Those costs are not trivial. The Government's own figures say that
	"transition costs",
	which are not included in their figure of up to £205 billion,
	"could be 1.3 per cent. to 2 per cent. of GDP in 2020."
	On the trade and competitiveness impact, which, again, is not taken into account in their costs, they say:
	"Both short and long run costs could be unevenly distributed, with a small number of energy intensive industries affected more significantly, particularly those facing international competition."
	They go on to quote the IPCC, whose research found
	"relatively high risks of the transfer of productive capital to countries without carbon policies"
	if they are pursued asymmetrically—that is, unilaterally by us, without others doing the same. We could end up bearing the cost of driving UK business abroad, which is not included in the Government's figures, without reducing carbon emissions—because, of course, those industries abroad would still be spewing forth carbon.

Martin Horwood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Institute of Public Policy Research report that considered the various Government models for calculating costs and said that, even if 2 or 3 per cent. of GDP in 2050 had been expended in an attempt to meet the 80 per cent.,
	"the economy would almost triple in size by 2050, even with an 80 per cent. cut in emissions"?
	So, surely, he is talking about a marginal amount in the end.

Hugh Bayley: No, I do not suggest that we do the same with global warming, because a British frigate cannot stop what a rich person in Los Angeles does. I make the point—and I stick to it—that we should do the right thing, and we should take a lead. We cannot expect other countries to participate in reducing carbon emissions unless we, as a large emitter, lead by example.
	Global warming is caused largely by emissions from countries such as ours, but its impact is felt mostly by people in poor developing countries. The Government set a target of an average increase in temperatures of no more than 2º C by the middle of the current century, but we must be aware that averages are sometimes misleading. If I put my head in the fire and my feet in the fridge, on average it is quite a comfortable temperature, but it is not a comfortable way to exist. An average increase in temperatures of 2º C will mean an increase of much less than 2º C over the oceans and much more than 2º C in the centre of continents, because the land heats up faster.
	Should the target be 60 cent. or 80 per cent.? I am glad the Government have charged the Committee on Climate Change with examining the question. I should like to see the Government set a figure much closer to 80 per cent. than to 60 per cent., but if we set a tougher target, it must be accompanied by credible policy changes that will secure greater reductions, and they need to be reflected in the annual carbon budget. Housing, for instance, accounts for some 15 per cent. of UK carbon emissions. The Government set a target that all new homes by 2016 must be carbon-neutral. In my constituency, I have seen some impressive pilot studies, with low-carbon building, which I described last week in a debate about eco-towns.
	We need to scale up that technology. Opponents of eco-towns say that we do not need them because the Government are pledged to zero carbon housing by 2016, come what may, but the only way we will develop the technology to meet that pledge is to pilot low-carbon housing on a community-wide basis. Some critics will ask why all the eco-towns are in the countryside, but I should like to see eco-districts in cities too. We need to build all our housing to those standards.
	Road transport accounts for more than 20 per cent. of total emissions and we need an eco-transport policy. Sooner or later, the UK will have to build a new high-speed north-south rail line. I would far rather the Government and business put money into that than into a third runway at Heathrow. We have plenty of airport capacity. Every plane that takes off from London for north America flies over Manchester. Why not fly it from Manchester? That would save half an hour of flying time and 400 miles worth of fuel on a round trip, and if a fast railway line from Manchester to London were built, passengers could be in London in an hour and 20 minutes or an hour and a half. We need a joined-up policy. The Government should create some talisman policies that show that behind the Bill is a raft of policy change that will make a difference.
	Some 25 years ago I ran a small television production company called IBT. At the time of the Ethiopian famine in 1984 we made a documentary called "Reclaiming the Earth". It made the case that drought is not a freak of nature. The famine in Ethiopia was caused, or at least amplified, by human action. We interviewed a woman called Wangari Maathai, a grass-roots campaigner from Kenya, 15 years before she won the Nobel peace prize and 20 years before she became an Environment Minister in the Kenyan Government. Her views and ours at the time were seen as soft-hearted speculation, but those arguments are mainstream today.
	We do not have another 25 years to keep debating the issue. If we do not take action in this country and provide a lead globally, the consequences will be catastrophic not just for Kenya and Ethiopia, but for the whole world.

Andrew Tyrie: I strongly agree. Some areas of the science are settled, but many are not. Having read extensively the literature, my tentative conclusion is that there is still considerable uncertainty about how the climate system varies, and particularly about how it reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. We should regard the current estimates of the magnitude of future warming as tentative.
	I note that the only reliable survey that has been conducted of 550 of the world's leading climate scientists says that two thirds are convinced that most of the observed warming is related to human action. In other words, a third are not convinced of that. It is worth bearing in mind that many of the so-called 2,500 scientists in the IPCC process vehemently disagree with the panel's conclusions, even though they support the section on the science in the main report on which they have worked.
	Let us suppose that the science was settled and that we could take the central scenarios of the IPCC as the basis for policy making. What action should flow from that? To answer that question, the Government rely entirely on Lord Stern, as the Minister said this afternoon. Stern's view is that we should implement a crash programme of carbon emissions reductions, as implied by the Bill. The problem is that Lord Stern's report, far from being endorsed by the lion's share of the world's environmental economists, has been comprehensively shredded by them.
	At a symposium at Yale, the leading experts assembled with Lord Stern and thrashed it all out in detail. I will not go into the detail now; I do not have time. Suffice it to say that the flaws were politely and, in my view, brutally and decisively exposed. In their view and mine, his report is littered with far too many mistakes and controversial assumptions to be taken as a serious basis for policy action at this time.
	Professor Nordhaus, probably the world's leading environmentalist, described the conclusions as "completely absurd", as has Professor Richard Tol. Professors Mendelsohn, Yohe and a number of others have said pretty much the same. Professor Tol said:
	"If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps, if I were in a good mood, I would give him a 'D' for diligence; but more likely, I would give him an 'F' for fail."
	There is much more of that ilk from economists around the world and from most of the UK's leading experts—most, but not all. Some support Lord Stern, but he is in a minority.
	The Government persist in taking their lead from Lord Stern, in which case, logically, they should carry on listening to him. But he has changed his views since his report. He now says that we should cut emissions by between 80 and 90 per cent. by 2050. So why do the Government not go for 80 or 90 per cent.? After all, Adair Turner also supports 90 per cent. By the way, Tony Blair, not to be outdone, has told us that he favours virtually 100 per cent. cuts. With those proposals, we move fairly briskly out of the implausible world of large cuts and swiftly into the theatre of the absurd.
	What about the measures in the Bill? I have time to address only a few. A central objection raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) is that the Bill is unilateralist. No other country has been foolish enough to consider such a measure. It is a profound mistake to take the unilateralist route. First, we contribute only 2 per cent. of global emissions. Secondly, if we go ahead unilaterally, the UK will be disproportionately hit because we will increase our cost base when other countries have not increased theirs. A third reason is that although UK emissions will fall, they will reappear, probably at even higher levels, as the industries that we closed down with our higher cost base reopen in China and elsewhere. Finally, once we have acted unilaterally, the Chinese will have every incentive to delay an international agreement. That point has not been made at all today. After all, why should they rush to agree anything when they can acquire our industrial base and those of other countries silly enough to go it alone? It is regrettable that the Government have not even thought through the issue enough to make the Bill's implementation conditional on some action by others. At least the EU approach to cutting carbon emissions contains some conditionality.
	There are many other deep flaws in the Bill, but I do not have time to discuss them. It will hit the poorest in our society and in societies throughout the world. As I have already mentioned, the Government have only the sketchiest idea of how to go about this huge undertaking and of its cost. One clause—recently added—is enough to make the Bill objectionable to me. It now requires 70 per cent. of carbon emissions to come from domestic efforts and not to be purchased from abroad. Either the carbon emissions trading scheme is something that we want, in which case we should be allowed to buy as much as we need from it, or it is a corrupt or hopeless scheme, in which case it is not the right way forward and the domestic requirement just imposes an unnecessary extra burden on our economy. It has to be one or the other. I support proportionate action, including a modest carbon tax, technological research and adaptation, but the Bill is not proportionate.

Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman is giving a deeply apocalyptic view of the world. Can he tell me where in the IPCC reports, including in the science section of the fourth report, is the evidence to support such a view?

Desmond Turner: As has already been made clear, it is not in the IPCC reports, which err on the side of conservatism and are entirely consensual. However, everybody knows that there are step-change events that could completely transform the situation—for example, if the Amazon rainforest burned or if the Arctic tundra melted and released the enormous quantities of methane trapped in it; methane is a powerful greenhouse gas that would ratchet up the greenhouse effect enormously.
	Enough of the flat-earthers—let us go with the majority for the moment and deal with the Bill. The Bill is a collection of aspirations. By itself, it does not legislate for the saving of a single tonne of CO2. It needs some nuts and bolts. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) said, we must have concrete measures to make it work. Fortunately, other legislative vehicles are kicking around.
	The Energy Bill, for example, is now in the House of Lords. I am sad that, so far, we have missed an opportunity for advance through that Bill; it does nothing like enough to promote the deployment of renewable energy in Britain. We are in the unique position of having magnificent raw sources of renewable energy, and there is no more effective weapon against climate change and CO2 emissions than the maximum deployment of renewable energy. I confidently expect those omissions to be corrected in the Lords by various amendments, and I hope that the Government will accept them when the Bill comes back so that we can start to deploy renewable energy much faster and more effectively.
	If we are going to do anything, we have to make a dramatic step change in our whole approach to climate change. It is no good assuming, as clause 1 does, that we can legislate for a 2° C limit on global warming. The range of variability in the correlation between levels of CO2, or CO2 equivalents, and temperature rises has such a wide margin of error that 2° C is at the lower end of the range. The only answer is to take a precautionary approach and to reduce as fast as we can as effectively as we can. That is why we cannot mess about with this.
	The flat earth society is very concerned about the economic impact, but that pales into insignificance if the world becomes uninhabitable—there ain't much of an economy in an uninhabitable world. In future, on every measure that the Government introduce we must carry out not only a regulatory impact assessment but a climate change impact assessment, and we need to try to ensure that that assessment is always on the positive side.
	I believe that we should not wait for the Committee on Climate Change to increase the central target to at least 80 per cent., with concomitant increases in the interim targets, but, rather, should do so during the passage of the Bill. In the light of current evidence, it is inconceivable that the committee would recommend anything less. We all know that the sooner one takes action—the sooner a tonne of CO2 is saved—the more effective it is. I very much hope that we can go to the higher targets right now. We should ensure that at least 70 per cent. of CO2 emissions are saved within country. There is an awful lot of doubt about clean development mechanism credits and so on. They have been seriously abused, and there is a real possibility that if we place too much emphasis on buying credits we will not save any CO2 at all. Equally, I have a very qualified faith in trading mechanisms. One of my criticisms of the Bill is that it places far too much reliance on trading mechanisms and not enough on physical mechanisms such as exploiting renewable energy. Markets never delivered anything except money into rich men's pockets.

John Maples: No—I want to get on with my argument.
	It is not the temperature itself that is important but the effects to do with water, food, coastlines and health, almost all of which are amenable to our ability to adapt. Anybody who doubts that should read Bjørn Lomborg's book, which is a seriously reasoned analysis of the costs of dealing with those issues through the Kyoto process and through adaptation. In almost every case, adaptation is the cheaper way to do it, in the sense that our living standards rise faster.

John Maples: I was coming that point. On, the Government's renewables target of 20 per cent., a leaked document went to  The Guardian recently, which said that the Government's own predictions of the costs were between £18 billion and £22 billion a year. That is £400 a person, or £300 a week for every family of four in the country. All I can say is you run on that policy at the next election, and any party that does it—

John Maples: No, I am sorry. I want to make these points myself.
	We are a very adaptable people, and we can achieve much more by pursuing economic growth, and as we are richer, applying the technology that we have and that we develop to deal with these issues.
	In the 2003 heatwave, there was a huge amount of publicity concerning the 2,000 additional heat-related deaths in London, but every year in this city 25,000 people die of cold in the winter. It is not just a one-way street—there are benefits of global warming as well as costs, and those are never taken into account in the visions with which we are presented.
	The whole intellectual underpinning of the Government's policy is the Stern review. It was conscripted after they had come to their conclusions, which perhaps accounts for the methodology that Stern has used, and it has been comprehensively taken apart, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) says. Stern is accused of exaggerating the science. A review by some very distinguished people in  World Economics states:
	"We consider that the Review is doubly deficient. The scientific evidence for dangerous change is, in fact, far from overwhelming, and the Review presents a picture of the scientific debate that is neither accurate nor objective."
	Professor Nordhaus, whom my hon. Friend quoted, said in the Yale symposium at which Stern was present:
	"The review's unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are consistent with today's market place real interest rates".
	That is the rub. Stern has exaggerated the damages that will be caused. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) shakes his head, but he should read the Yale symposium document cover to cover. He will find that those criticisms are in there, and they are very trenchant indeed.

Andrew Tyrie: I have the Yale symposium document, and I completely agree with what my hon. Friend just said. Could he set out his view on the fact that Stern writes in no value at all for pure-time discounting?

John Maples: The main criticism of the Stern review is the discount rate that it uses. It is quite difficult to work out what it is because Stern does not tell us, but, working backwards, it looks like about 1.3 or 1.4 per cent. He gets that from saying that the value of our generation and the one living in 3,000 years' time is the same—there should be no pure-time discounting at all. He uses 0.1 per cent., but that is close to zero as makes no difference. The Government's policy is based on Stern, and because he uses a time discount rate of 0.1 per cent., 5 per cent. of the benefits accrue more than 3,000 years in the future, with 93 per cent. accruing more than 200 years in the future. That cannot be a sensible basis for making policy. I am concerned about my children and the world that they live in, and about my grandchildren and the world that they live in, but I do not think that any of us are concerned about the generations that are going to be alive in 3,000 years' time. That is what we are being asked to pay for now.
	Stern further compounds that error by saying that a sacrifice of 10 per cent. of one's income is the same to a rich person as it is to a poor person. That is effectively what he does, because the world will be much richer in 100 years' time than we are now, but he thinks that we should pay the costs now rather than leave richer generations to pay them in the future. That is like saying that in 1800 we should have legislated to make people living in dreadful conditions in the industrial revolution sacrifice part of their income so that we would not have the problems that we do 200 years later. That is the logic of the argument.
	On top of that, Stern uses an incredibly low interest rate. The Treasury's benchmark for real returns on capital is 3.5 per cent., that of the World Bank is 8 to 10 per cent. and most American corporations achieve approximately 7 per cent., but Stern uses 1.3 or 1.4 per cent. Of course, such a figure makes future damage much more expensive than a higher figure. If one uses a figure of 4 per cent., the consequences are far fewer. A discount rate of 1.4 per cent. makes $1,650 in 200 years' time worth $100 now, whereas a 4 per cent. discount makes it worth 55c. One can take one's pick, but there is a huge gulf. Stern has picked interest rates at the lowest possible end of the spectrum.
	Stern also compares one possible solution with doing nothing. One would expect such a study to compare a range of solutions. The most important IPCC scenario that he left out assumed high growth and lower fossil fuel usage—exactly the policy that we all want to pursue. He picked and chose his scenarios and his data, and he chose a low interest rate.
	The only argument for acting radically now is if there is a tipping point—a point of no return. None of the scientists whom I have read predicts that.
	Some man-made warming is going on. It is worth taking action now: a price mechanism through carbon tax, energy efficiency and nuclear power are worth pursuing, especially nuclear power. Research into alternative power sources—fusion, carbon capture and adaptive strategies—is also worth conducting. The Stern review is worth recasting along the lines that I suggested. However, if we go down the road that we are following, we sacrifice a huge amount—perhaps 1 or 2 per cent. of GDP—now and for ever, for a problem, most of the consequences of which will not be felt for 200 years.

Rob Marris: I welcome the Bill and I accept that human activity is affecting the climate adversely. I am not a flat-earther and I welcome the Government's leadership, especially that of the then Deputy Prime Minister at Kyoto. However, I do not accept tonight's cosy consensus.
	The cuts in CO2 emissions are measured against a 1990 baseline up to 2050. We are 30 per cent. of the way into that period, and there has been roughly a 30 per cent. change in CO2 emissions on a world level in that time. However, it is a 30 per cent. increase, not a 30 per cent. cut. United Kingdom per capita emissions are up since 2000. According to the National Audit Office, the Government have increased their emissions. Between 2003-06, the Department for Transport showed a 50 per cent. increase in emissions; between 2000-06, the Department for Constitutional Affairs showed a 66 per cent. increase; and the Department for Work and Pensions—the second biggest consumer of energy in the civil estate—increased its emissions by 14 per cent. between 2000-06.
	Oil prices have increased massively, not because production has decreased but because demand has increased—we are burning more of the stuff. We need to consider what has to be done to get anywhere. The Paris-based International Energy Agency told the Bali conference on climate change that, in the world, we need 30 new nuclear power plants, 17,000 wind turbines, 400 biomass power plants, two hydroelectric dams, each the size of the Three Gorges project in China, and 42 coal or natural gas plants using carbon capture or storage if we are to cut emissions by 50 per cent. by 2050. We need all that by 2013, and we need it every year from 2013 until 2030.
	We have heard arguments in the Chamber and outside about an 80 per cent. cut. They are presented with the best intentions. However, it is not a piddling up the wall contest, but reality. I say to hon. Members, "Wake up and smell the coffee." We are not going to achieve 80 per cent.—it will be hard to reach 60 per cent., if we consider the number of air trips our constituents make or the simple fact that most Members and their staff will not even turn off the lights in the toilets in Portcullis House.
	I learned about greenhouse gas effects at university in 1974. By that token, many hon. Members are speaking with the zeal of recent converts. The 80 per cent. figure represents gesture politics, albeit from the best intentions. As far as I know, the youngest Member is the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who was here earlier. In 2050, she will be 70 years old. It is unlikely that she will be an active politician then.
	There has been an over-emphasis in this debate, with 17 Back-Bench speeches before mine, on causes. Of course causes are important, but in opening the debate, the Minister almost spent longer on plastic bags than on adaptation, which many hon. Members know I have a thing about. It was the same with the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benchers.
	The under-emphasis on dealing with the effects is nonsense, because the effects will come anyway, almost regardless of whatever we do, because we are responsible for only 2 per cent. of emissions. Yes, we need to show leadership, but the effects are coming anyway. Amazingly, I have a lot of sympathy with the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on the unilateralist approach, which could mean that we take our eye off the ball on the adaptation that we need to engage in.
	Various agencies and others are getting their teeth into adaptation, but not the Government, or at least not enough. They include the Environment Agency, the Association of British Insurers, the European Union, which has produced an excellent report, the Met Office, the British Beekeepers Association, the Marine Climate Change Impacts Partnership, the Wildlife Trusts, the Local Government Association, the Oxford Research Group and so on. Lots of people are doing stuff on adaptation, but the Government have just one clause on it, following my private Member's Bill. That clause, which was clause 37 in the draft Bill, has, thank goodness, been expanded to 14 clauses, after what was inserted in the Lords, in order to adapt to the climate change that has already started and which will get worse, whether we on this small island go for 50, 60 or 80 per cent.
	Those effects mean the effects on wildlife, plants, food production and pests and of diseases such as malaria coming to this country, and they will affect issues such as building design and planning regulations; roads and railways, with rails buckling in the heat; water supply, with a need for new reservoirs; what we have to do about coastal defences with rising sea levels; inland flooding, which we saw dramatically last year and which will only get worse; possible civil unrest and its security implications, which other countries and, potentially, we will face; and international development. That is an entire adaptation agenda, which has been almost completely overlooked not only in this debate, but for all the time that we have been talking about climate change.
	I have been campaigning on adaptation for two years. The Government are starting to get it, but like Dickens's Oliver, I want a bit more. Specifically, I want a bit a more than the Minister spending 35 or 40 minutes opening the debate, but spending just two minutes on adaptation. There needs to be a whole lot more on adaptation, because adaptation is within our control. World emissions are not within our control, and only a complete ostrich or fantasy altruist would think that they were. Of course we try to show a way, but adaptation is much more important, because it is about what happens on these islands.
	It would be much better if the relevant clauses in the Bill asked for three-yearly reports, not five-yearly reports. I do not want five-yearly reports on adaptation; I want three-yearly reports. I want the first report within one year, not within three years. And for goodness' sake, why do we have a sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change dealing with adaptation, when it is at least as important to deal with the effects in this country as it is to deal with the causes? I say this to the Minister here now: it is complete nonsense to have a sub-committee dealing with adaptation. We need the full membership of the Committee on Climate Change to deal not only with causes, but with effects.

David Kidney: It is valuable to hear sceptical voices in the debate, because when there is a consensus it is important to test the arguments to the limit. I would not criticise anyone who has put forward a contrary point of view. I would ask those on each side of the debate to ask themselves, "What if I am wrong?" The consequence of taking urgent and drastic action now, which I propose we should, may have an economic cost, but it will bring in return a lower dependence on finite fossil energy resources. There will be an increase in resource efficiency, which will improve the atmosphere and biodiversity as a result. To me, those are desirable outcomes.
	Along with the science and the effects on the environment, we should take some other considerations into account. One of those is growth in the earth's population, which is already past 6 billion and forecast to be 9 billion by 2050—more mouths to feed, more demands on limited resources, and more demands for wealth, jobs and the ability to buy things. We must take that challenge into consideration. The further challenge is that while we deliberate on what action to take, investment decisions are being made about the future. We are in danger of laying down a second carbon economy while we decide what action should have been taken. That is another reason why urgent action is required.
	On the crucial issue of the targets for 2020 and 2050, and the other issues between us, I ask people to bear in mind that the eventual wording of the Bill, which is a forerunner and the first of its kind in the world, will determine the credibility of the final law with people beyond the Chamber, and with UK citizens whom we want to change behaviour in order to contribute to a low-carbon future. It will also determine our credibility in the eyes of other countries and Governments around the world whom we want to follow our example, and of those who make investment decisions on whether to go for a carbon or low-carbon future. In the years that follow our decision on the Bill, those investment flows will make the biggest difference to the future. I therefore ask for cautious wording to be adopted on the crucial issues that have been dividing us tonight.
	The Bill has just the one instrument: emissions trading. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Bill anticipates not just one emissions trading scheme, but a whole series in this country and hopefully around the world. If the Stern approach to achieving a low-carbon future through the price of carbon is adopted, it is important that emissions trading schemes are successful and credible with markets. As other Members want to speak, I have insufficient time to discuss the tools that are not in the Bill. Clearly, however, when we announce a carbon budget next year, and an action plan for five years, all those other instruments—economic instruments, regulation, education, publicity and, hopefully, media support—will come into play.
	On the specific issue of power generation, 30 years ago Germany chose the route of a feed-in tariff to promote greater renewables use, whereas this country chose the route of obligations—the non-fossil fuel obligation, and now the renewables and renewable transport fuel obligations. I do not say that they were right and we were wrong, but given this summer's consultation about feed-in tariffs, and all that we have said about smart meters during consideration of the Energy Bill, I hope that this country can at least graft those on to our existing tools as part of our solution.

Michael Jack: The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, welcomed the Bill. In its report, it indicated ways in which the Bill could be improved and strengthened, and some of those suggestions have been acted on by the House of Lords. If for no other reason than it provides some domestic self-discipline in our attitudes towards emissions reduction, the Bill has merit. To date, in spite of the Government's endeavours, we are effectively running behind the trajectory that the Bill establishes, and that we have already established as a target for our emissions reduction.
	Effectively, the Bill puts the rigour of law behind the setting of targets. Targets are what they are—they are where we would like ideally to be. Through the establishment of the Climate Change Committee, the Bill attempts to provide advice to the Government about how to achieve those targets. The way in which the committee provides its advice will, in my view, be crucial to the domestic effectiveness of the legislation. We currently have no clear plan for achieving emissions reductions in, for example, heat production and transport: our proposals in those areas lack the detail that we tend to include when becoming excited by discussion of electricity generation.
	Some have described this as an isolationist approach. I would describe it as different, but if it does one thing, it adds to the credibility of the voice of the United Kingdom in the international forums that will be so vital if the world is to get to grips with the whole question of climate change. Whatever the science says, whatever the numbers say, making the best possible use of our scarce resources—in this instance, carbon—is essential at this time.
	Last week I had the pleasure of attending the food and agriculture world summit in Rome, which discussed food supply. I can tell anyone who wants to know where international consensus can be found that there is such consensus on the effects of global warming on the supply of food to the billions of people who live on our planet. Any of us who may want to play fast and loose with the responsibility of feeding the planet should bear in mind that they ignore the rise in global temperatures at their peril.
	Even if it is for no other reason than the precautionary principle, it makes plain common sense to ask—nationally, within Europe and at a world level—what we can do to address that risk. If we do not ask that question we should be reminded, in the nicest possible way, that most of us will not be around in 2052, when the Bill tells us that, if we miss the target, the hapless Secretary of State of the day will have to come to the House and present a report explaining why we missed it.
	If the worst-case scenarios of the scientists are realised we will be in deep trouble, and optimising the use of our resources in the meantime is, again, plain common sense. The carbon committee's role will be vital, not just from the United Kingdom's standpoint. It will provide advice on dealing with all the carbon trading activities that will take place in the European Union, and on input to the successor of the Kyoto treaty.
	At the meeting in Rome last week, I listened to what was said by delegates from the United States. One speaker told us that the United States took climate change seriously, that it was in the lead with all kinds of mitigation policies, and that it had reduced its emissions in relation to the growth of its economy. I must admit that I blinked and wondered whether I could believe what I was hearing, but in about six months that could be the reality. A new American Administration could change things dramatically. I want to make certain that the United Kingdom is at the top table, with a credible position and able to influence that new Administration. Unless the United States is engaged in the climate change agenda, we shall not be able to make the necessary progress with the successor to Kyoto and deal with the difficult issues of Chinese and Indian emissions.
	When it comes to the setting of our domestic budgets, we must bear in mind that we are allowed a certain quantity of carbon emissions until 2050. The carbon committee's decision on whether we should have a "ski slope trajectory" or a "cliff edge" solution will be vital to how we reduce our domestic emissions, and it is important for the committee to make clear at an early stage how it will tackle that aspect.
	I should like the Bill to specify the involvement of Parliament in discussions of the Secretary of State's reports. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will report on the achievement or non-achievement of the targets in response to the Climate Change Committee's report, with Parliament effectively sidelined. The only sanction on Parliament is the need for it to make certain that our carbon budgets are balanced. I should like a mandatory requirement for a climate change debate, allowing the court of opinion to be represented through the expression of views in the House of Commons.
	Finally, I ask the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to make certain once and for all that we in this country can see who within Government is in charge of the climate change debate. I would like there to be a Cabinet Minister for climate change—somebody who can bring together all the elements of this subject to ensure that there is genuine coherence of policy as we pass this Bill.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who has echoed some of the very sensible remarks of his party colleague, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). It is interesting that we can have such intelligent cross-party debate on this issue in the Chamber, while at the same time there is an undercurrent theme from the Opposition Benches which is utterly antediluvian—as represented by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I just pray that the right hon. Member for Fylde and the hon. Member for South Suffolk represent the true position and authentic voice of the Tory party on the issue.
	Climate change is real. It is caused by human action, and it is already affecting the lives of millions of people throughout the world. If climate change is a fact, it is also important that we outline two others. Economic growth can, will and should continue. Often when I speak with the environmentalists, they seem to regard economic growth as the enemy; it is not, and let me explain why. Over the past two centuries, Europe and North America have managed through economic growth to raise almost one third of the population of this world out of a life of hunger, hardship and disease. In the past two decades, another third of the world's population, mostly in Asia, has found that escape route, and they, too, are transforming their lives through economic growth. In the coming years, the final third will be looking to make their escape as well, and no environmentalist, and certainly no politician, will be able to stop them, and in the interests of justice no one should try. I echo the remarks of the right hon. Member for Fylde when he spoke about the world food summit. For every 1 per cent. rise in food prices, 16 million extra people go to bed hungry every night. That demonstrates the seriousness of the challenge.
	The second inescapable fact is that there comes a point when the continued emission of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere will so fundamentally affect ecosystem services that human life becomes unsustainable—or to put that into the language of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, we must drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions to stabilise the world climate.
	Let me explain why I prefer to talk in the language of ecosystem services rather than of climate change. In and of itself, change in climate would not matter. What matters is that the pace of change is so fast that biodiversity cannot keep up with it. As biodiversity declines, ecosystem services fail, and it is the ecosystem services that matter and the biodiversity upon which they are based. I guarantee that tomorrow some "intelligent" member of the press corps will quote the UK Prime Minister's special envoy for forestry as saying that climate change does not matter, but I hope that, in this Chamber, I will have conveyed the truth.
	Those two inescapable facts lead us to one imperative for action: we must raise the level of carbon productivity—the amount of wealth generated per tonne of CO2 emitted. In order to maintain the current global economic growth rate of 3.1 per cent. per annum while reducing emissions to about 20 gigatonnes by 2050 and 10 gigatonnes per year thereafter—that is consistent with a 450 to 500 parts per million stabilisation scenario—carbon productivity must increase by a range of between eightfold and fifteenfold by 2050. Without that major increase in productivity, maintaining ecosystem services will become impossible, for let the rich world take note that there will be no sharing of the environmental space if there is no sharing of the development space—there will be no sharing of the environmental resources unless there is a sharing of the development commitment, and in particular of the adaptation commitment.
	Achieving an eightfold to fifteenfold increase in carbon productivity will require radical and wholesale changes in the world economy at both macro and micro-economic levels. I would like to go into some of those, but time does not permit that, as colleagues wish to contribute. There are five clear areas of work, however: energy efficiency; decarbonising energy sources; accelerating the development and deployment of new technologies; changing the attitudes and behaviour of managers and consumers; and preserving the world's carbon sinks.
	Let me end by describing that world in 2050 as it will be when I die, aged 93. Estimated global population projection: 10 billion people. To maintain ecosystem services: emissions limited to 20 gigatonnes by 2050, declining to 10 gigatonnes thereafter to achieve that stabilisation goal. That means an average of 2 tonnes per person per year, declining to 1 tonne—so low that there is no scope for any large group to depart significantly above or below it. Current emissions are about 11 tonnes per capita in the EU, 25 tonnes in the US and already 5 tonnes in China.
	That gives us three options for the future. The first is to accept injustice, with some developed countries continuing to demand more than an equal share of the world's finite resources, which is possible but—I hope that we all think—unacceptable. The second is to increase carbon productivity still further beyond the fifteenfold increase already discussed. The third is to reduce population—something that politicians in developed countries are very reluctant to discuss, but which Governments in developing countries have already taken on board.
	People are very keen to accuse China, as we have heard in this debate, over their coal-fired power stations. Such people fail to commend the political initiative that has seen 400 million people not being born to create a carbon footprint in the first place. We need to take the issue of population seriously. It is the third element of the triangle, and it should be incorporated into this Bill.

Martin Horwood: I am depressed by the re-emergence of such forceful Conservative climate change scepticism during this debate, but impressed by the emerging consensus among all three major parties regarding support not only for this Bill but for a stronger version of it.
	I stand here to honour a pledge to my constituents to fight for binding targets for greenhouse gas reduction. I stand in the tradition of a party and, more importantly, a green movement that I have counted myself a member of for nearly 30 years, and that tried for decades to draw the attention of Governments to the seriousness of the crisis that we faced. I stand here finally as a parent, so that I can look my children in the eye when they are older and tell them that I played my part in the attempt to stop the catastrophe when there was still time.
	The omens, however, are not good. The Bill contains the 60 per cent. target, which was based on the royal commission report from 2000. It based that, in turn, on the assumption that stabilisation at 550 parts per million was sufficient to contain global warming within 2° C above pre-industrial levels. However, by the time the Stern report was published, those numbers were already out of date. The Hadley centre, which was mentioned earlier by a Conservative Member, is quoted in the Stern report as saying that at 550 parts per million, the probability of exceeding 2° C is 99 per cent. Even at 450 parts per million, the probability of exceeding 2° C is 78 per cent. The more conservative IPCC figures put the figure at 38 per cent. That is a risk that I would happily bet on if I was betting on a horse at the Cheltenham races; it is not one I would bet on for the future of the planet.
	Let us remind ourselves what exceeding 2° C of global warming actually means. Contrary to what some Conservative speakers have said today, there was a scientific review in Stern and it pointed out what the impacts of exceeding 2° C would be. It said:
	"Significant changes in water availability...Possible onset of collapse of part or all of Amazonian rainforest...Many species face extinction (20-50 per cent. in one study)...Rising intensity of storms, forest fires, droughts, flooding and heat waves",
	In the non-physical—in the political—realm, we can predict political and social conflict worldwide, and inevitably millions of deaths.
	The truth is that the IPCC science is relatively conservative. It is based on consensus and old science, and the new science is if anything more worrying. Let me give just one example, as there is little time. A meta-study published in  Nature last month examined 28,800 datasets that might reveal climate impacts on animals and plants worldwide. Some 90 per cent. revealed alterations in the direction expected as a response to warming. Some 95 per cent. of the datasets, which were linked to physical changes such as retreating glaciers, painted the same picture.
	Those massive changes may induce physical feedback mechanisms to make the situation rapidly and unpredictably worse. Such mechanisms include changes in carbon absorption patterns in our oceans and soils, reduced reflectivity as white Arctic ice is more rapidly replaced by dark ocean, ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica accelerating their own melting much faster than we had first predicted, and a loss of biodiversity. The recent report by Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution for Science noted the added threat of deep reserves of greenhouse gases—carbon and methane—running into trillions of tonnes in the deep ocean floor and in the permafrost contributing to those feedback mechanisms. As a result, organisation after organisation is making it crystal clear that the 60 per cent. target is not enough.
	I was going to cite many organisations, but as many have already been mentioned, I shall refer to just one. WWF, which knows a little about biodiversity, has cited a recent analytical study by Ecofys for DEFRA, concluding:
	"An 80 per cent. target in the Climate Change Bill would therefore be at the bottom end of the range recommended by Ecofys. A 60 per cent. target would completely fail to deliver the 2° C pathway that the Government supports."
	If that is not enough, Sir Nicholas Stern says:
	"For a 50 per cent. reduction in global emissions by 2050, the world average per capita must drop from seven tonnes to two or three. Within these global targets, even a minimal view of equity demands that the rich countries' reductions should be at least 80 per cent.".
	He is right to talk about equity, and other quotes that I could have cited mention burden sharing. This is not just a scientific decision; as some hon. Members have said, it is a moral and political decision. It is about what share of responsibility the United Kingdom and the other developed countries are prepared to take for their share of emissions.
	I am pessimistic enough about this Government's ability to take action and conscious enough of the need for an clear target for industry and the private sector to be in favour of a 100 per cent. reduction target. However, I am prepared to compromise at 80 per cent. for this Bill—I believe that that is the consensus in many parts of this Chamber. I am disappointed that the Government and the Conservative Front-Bench team are still stuck at 60 per cent., and I hope that we can change their minds, not least because the UK has huge geophysical resources for renewable energy, and enormous talent and entrepreneurial potential. We should be a world leader in the fight against climate change, not a laggard.
	The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) rightly said that we needed strong, early action. I am reminded of the note written by Churchill during world war two when he was presented with evidence that radical investment in code breaking could significantly shorten the war. It simply said, "Action this day". We now face an even greater, even more serious and even more global crisis than world war two. We need to move on to a war footing against climate change. We need action, and not only by setting targets in this Bill. The rest of the Government need to act on international trade, energy, transport, housing and taxation, and they need to refuse applications such as those for a third runway at Heathrow or for a new power station at Kingsnorth without carbon capture. We need action this day.

Alan Simpson: This, internationally, is a groundbreaking Bill, which if we give it teeth, could also be an Earth-changing one. I am pleased that tonight's debate has not turned into a parliamentary love-in to welcome the Bill, because the purpose of Second Reading must be for us to set out the basis on which to have serious arguments among ourselves about the deficiencies of the Bill. Those arguments may then be rehearsed in Committee, but ultimately they will be tested back in this Chamber on Report. We need to be honest about a determination on the part of the House to make this a Bill with teeth.
	The context in which the debate is taking place is a world spinning into a multiplicity of crises. We face not only the climate crunch, but a credit crunch, a food security crunch, a water supply crunch and an oil crunch. We are told by the International Energy Agency that oil prices are expected to exceed $150 a barrel within a month. We have been warned by OPEC of the likelihood that oil prices will exceed $200 a barrel by the end of the year. That will have a huge and unavoidable impact on food prices, food supply, energy and production. Those are non-negotiable changes against which we are trying to deal with this Bill. The real danger globally is that we may face a series of meltdowns in global systems. If that is the case, we will be forced into a fundamental rethink about how a world that can support human life can work.
	The scientific consensus is that there tends to be a 30-year delay in the environmental impact of the damage that we do now. So for the next 30 years, we cannot undo the damage that is in the pipeline: we are stuck with it. Whether the changes are driven by human impacts or solar cycles, the rate of environmental damage is accelerating. The challenge is what we do to address that. We should not be arguing about the 2050 targets, but about the 2015 or 2020 targets. That is what the scientists told us in Bali. Fundamentally, the whole shape of this century will be determined by what we do within the next five years, or 10 at the most. A figure of 26 per cent. carbon savings by 2020 is 10 per cent. short of what we need, so we need to raise the short-term targets.
	The lesson that the Government have to learn is that when we have been shy about setting tough year-on-year achievement targets, we miss the milestones that we set for ourselves—on child poverty and fuel poverty eradication for the most vulnerable by 2010. Unless we take the hard decisions now, we may not be in a position to take any meaningful decisions by 2020.
	We have to address new realities about the nature of the crunch. One is that everything that is non-renewable and depleting will spiral in price from now on. If there is anything that stands a chance of saving the poor it is a fundamental shift towards the sustainable and the renewable.
	I must disagree with several parts of the Bill. The first is mandatory reporting standards. We cannot have an objective shift on the scale that we need if everyone is making up the standards as they go along. If even the CBI says that it supports that, so must we. The second is targets and how we meet them. The targets have to be domestic. We have to move away from the presumption that we can pay someone else to meet them. If a Member of Parliament were stopped by the police and found to be driving three times over the alcohol limit, they could not give the excuse that although they might be blind drunk at the wheel, they had sponsored a man in Botswana to stay at home sober. That would not get them off the rack. We have to be held to account for the dangers that we present in how we drive our economy, as we are when we drive our cars. We are the danger on the road to survival and we have to change our behaviour ourselves.
	The third area is aviation and shipping, which have to be added to the Bill, even if we simply factor in their carbon impact. If the Government insist that those two sectors have to have their impact covered by other people, at least their impact has to be added to the equation, as the royal commission required in 2000.
	Trading emissions is the Mickey Mouse idea of our time. A study of the effectiveness of CFC and HFC reduction programmes in the developing world found that they cost $5 billion in carbon credits, but it would have cost $100 million just to give the countries the money to do the clean-up directly. We need to choose the transparent and the simple method, not the complex and speculative.
	The issue on reporting is not the competence, integrity or commitment of DEFRA Ministers. It is the commitment of the Government as a whole. In that context, everyone knows that the obstacles will not come from officials in DEFRA. They will come from the Treasury, which is where they have always come from. If anyone is going to throw a spanner in the works, it is the Treasury. If that is the case, the person who has to be accountable is the Prime Minister. This is about leadership from the Government as a whole. If the Prime Minister wants to take hold of the issue and say to the House and to the country, "The buck stops here", the response that he will get from outside is, "You bet your life it does!"

Nick Hurd: I shall take one minute to make one point to the Government. I recently served on Committees that considered two major measures: the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill and the Housing and Regeneration Bill, which were transformed in Committee by the Government's own amendments. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the Government have thought the Bill through and that, in Committee, we will not dilute the Bill's core value, which is as a framework Bill that will send a clear signal to the markets about the changes that we are making to the way in which we set and revise targets and hold the Government accountable for those targets. That is what the markets want to hear; that is what they will base their investments on. Let us not dilute the Bill by applying the kitchen-sink principle to taking it through Committee.

Gregory Barker: I have missed out a bit. I apologise and I stand corrected. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton said that the Government must produce a clear and precise strategy for meeting the EU 2020 target of 15 per cent. renewable energy. On that we all agree.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, made a wide ranging and expert speech ending with a call for a Cabinet Minister for climate change, which was probably noted by both Ministers on the Front Bench.
	The hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) made a valuable contribution, as did the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) was spot-on with his observation that stealth taxes disguised as green taxes serve only to give the whole environmental agenda a bad name.
	Progressive, profitable, forward-looking businesses everywhere are grasping the climate change opportunity. However, the Bill on its own will not deliver the changes that they need. Although we support the framework, it should be no surprise that we are far more critical of the Government's record of real carbon reductions to date, and their lack of ambitious policies to deliver the economic carbon transformation anticipated in the Bill.
	Nevertheless, I congratulate Ministers on bringing the Bill thus far. It is a welcome step towards creating a long-term public policy framework that will enable British entrepreneurs and wealth creators to gain some of the certainty and direction that they need to drive dynamic industrial change—dynamic industrial change that will spawn new industries, create thousands of new jobs, utilise the tremendous talents, skills and abilities of the British work force, help arrest the remorseless exhaustion of the planet's finite natural resources, drive the transformation of our economy and secure the long-term prosperity and well-being of future generations.
	I look forward to working constructively with the Government to take the Bill into Committee, to scrutinise it and improve it, mindful of the need to protect the interests of hard-pressed consumers in a tough economic environment, mindful of the need of businesses for long-term clarity and certainty, and mindful of the need to maintain full accountability to Parliament of the present Administration and all future Governments as they strive to meet the demanding, stretching carbon reduction targets set out in the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State opened the debate from our Benches by quoting Margaret Thatcher, the first world leader to call for concerted global action against man-made climate change. I close with a less well known quote from her, which was equally prescient. In November 1990, in one of her last speeches before leaving office, Lady Thatcher told the world climate conference:
	"The IPCC tells us that, on present trends, the earth will warm up faster than at any time since the last ice age. Weather patterns could change so that what is now wet could become dry, and what is now dry could become wet. Rising seas could threaten the livelihood of that substantial part of the world's population which lives on or near coasts. The character and behaviour of plants would change, some for the better, some for worse. Some species of animals and plants would migrate to different zones or disappear for ever. Forests would die or move. And deserts would advance as green fields retreated. Many of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event. It is sensible to improve energy efficiency and use energy prudently; it's sensible to develop alternative and sustainable and sensible...it's sensible to improve energy efficiency and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply; it's sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it's sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it's sensible to tackle the problem of waste. I understand that the latest vogue is to call them 'no regrets' policies. Certainly we should have none in putting them into effect."
	Indeed, we should have no regrets, just renewed ambition and even greater determination to overcome the challenge of global warming. In that spirit, we welcome the Bill.

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) for his support. Let us be absolutely clear about just how ambitious the Bill is. When it receives Royal Assent—in a few months' time, I hope—the UK will be the first country in the world to have a legally binding, long-term framework to cut CO2 emissions and adapt to climate change. The framework of binding targets and budgets, and the accompanying obligations on the Government, supported by maximum transparency and by parliamentary oversight, will drive the UK's transition to the low-carbon economy that we need both to play our part in that crucial global effort and to secure our own economic future.
	I very much welcome the generally positive tone of today's debate. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), in his opening remarks, said that the Bill is probably the most important piece of environmental legislation in a generation. He is correct. He asked me about clause 1 and the purpose of the Bill. May I tell him that any attempt to hold the world to a 2° C temperature rise depends on every country playing its part? It cannot be a unilateral move, and we therefore have difficulty accepting his point. He asked about the Prime Minister being responsible for reporting, but we have a Cabinet Government, and the whole Government are bound by the Bill and the whole Government will have to report in due course.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about overseas credits, as did the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). The majority of emissions savings will, indeed, come from our domestic effort, but the fact is that in the emissions trading scheme, 50 per cent. of our emissions can be dealt with by companies making their own decisions. They can, for example, make reductions in a plant in Germany rather than in one in the UK. If we want the trading scheme, we cannot have limits on the emissions and credits that we can obtain overseas. The hon. Member for East Surrey asked about Lord Turner. The most important thing that he will do as the chair of the new committee will be to set the advice to the Government on those first budgets. That he will do. He will leave in the new year, but not until that most important job is done.
	My many hon. Friends have made very constructive speeches, but I have no time to go into all of them. The hon. Member for Northavon rather failed to rise to the occasion, although far be it from me to call his contribution a piddling little speech. He spoke about the 80 per cent. target, and the Bill says "at least" 60 per cent. We have made it very clear that in the reference to the Climate Change Committee, we have allowed for the fact that the provision may be tightened to 80 per cent. The hon. Gentleman has to wait only until the end of this year, when that decision will be taken.
	The hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) made a good speech. I was grateful to him for agreeing that progress against the 2020 the interim target is the most important issue. He offered to supply some names for Lord Turner's replacement, and we would be delighted to hear any names from the hon. Gentleman.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy), in a very supportive speech, spoke about the importance of the oceans—one area about which we are extremely conscious—and of going beyond the tales in the tabloid press, which fail to encourage people to take their responsibilities seriously.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) spoke with his usual expertise and commitment. The Bill requires the committee to publish its advice and the reasons for it, so if the Government were to set a target at a different level, they would have to say why. The issue of transparency is covered.
	Many hon. Members referred to aviation and shipping. Those matters are best addressed at the international level, working through the United Nations, the International Civil Aviation Authority and the International Maritime Organisation. We are taking action in Europe. We have been leading in Europe on the question of including aviation and shipping emissions. However, complex issues are involved and, as was recognised in the other place, we need expert advice from the Committee on Climate Change before we take a decision on whether to include international aviation and shipping emissions in our targets under the Bill.
	The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) made an important contribution on forests and biodiversity and the need to assist developing economies. We can all bear that in mind in the debate about whether we accept a restriction on the credits that we obtain overseas.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), in a typically challenging speech, discussed mandatory reporting by companies. The Companies Act 2006 provides for reporting on environmental issues by listed companies, but it is too early to say how well they are reporting and what they are reporting on. When Lord Rooker accepted the amendment in the House of Lords, he said that the Government would have to consider the matter further, and that is what we will do. Kingsnorth has not yet been licensed, and we cannot anticipate what will happen in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke on the basis of his international experience and referred to the importance of setting an example. He mentioned the need to convince China. We totally agree, and we work very closely with China. That is why carbon capture and storage is so important.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) made a very supportive speech. I am grateful for her remarks, particularly about the contribution of individuals, who are responsible for 40 per cent. of all the emissions that arise in this country. Our "Act on CO2" campaign and advice line are the best means by which individuals can contribute. As she said, the contribution of communities is also extremely important. She asked about the Government needing to do more on the question of buildings. All Departments are making greater efforts in relation to energy efficiency and sustainable development in general. The carbon reduction commitment, which is part of the Bill, will cover large councils and Departments and help to drive down emissions.
	The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) agreed that individuals should play their part by using their power in the marketplace and referred to reporting by companies, which I have already dealt with. We very much agree with his sentiments.

Joan Ruddock: I cannot give way. [Hon. Members: "Give way!"] I cannot—there is no time.
	I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and to the great contribution that he makes, particularly as president of GLOBE International. He raised several points that I think that I have covered already. He referred to recycling as being absolutely crucial in reducing emissions. That is very important. He is entirely right about bringing about behavioural change on waste as opposed to other means. He spoke about annual targets. Every year, the committee will report to Parliament on progress, and every year the Government must respond. We do not support annual targets because— [ Interruption. ]

Joan Ruddock: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to cover the points that were made.
	As I said, my right hon. Friend referred to targets. The committee will report to Parliament on progress, and every year, the Government must respond. We do not, however, support annual targets because there is always some variability in emissions each year—weather being an obvious case in point. Having annual targets would be a great problem, but there will be reporting and transparency, and there will be the opportunity for everyone to comment.
	In the contributions of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the true voice of conservatism was heard tonight—completely out of step with the majority of scientists. In February last year, the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change evaluated all available lines of evidence and concluded that there was a 90 per cent. chance that human emissions have caused most of the warming since 1950. That is the clearest answer to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised.

Robert Syms: I rise to introduce a debate on stoma and incontinence appliances in primary care in the United Kingdom, and the drug regulations that cover this area. It is true to say that many people care about this issue because it affects their lives. I want to begin by thanking my constituent, Alison Whitely, who works for Astra Tech, one of the companies that has spent some time coming to my surgery to inform me about the potential changes and their impact for patients.
	Since 2005 there have been six reviews, costing the Government about £2.5 million in consultants' fees, and probably costing the Department about £1.9 million in expenses. For most of the time that I have been in Parliament I have not had many people contact me about such services, because on the whole over the past decade they have been pretty good. However, in recent years people have contacted me when they thought that there would be changes and perhaps a risk to the services provided, because that has a real impact on people's lives.
	As we know, there have been announcements today changing the regime. It is a highly technical and complex area with lots of issues to look at, so many in the industry have hot towels round their heads tonight as they try to work out what changes have occurred and their impact on their company. They will no doubt come forward during the forthcoming 12-week consultation period with proposed further changes that they would like to see.
	However, broadly speaking there has been a welcome for the fact that in the earlier phases of consultation the Government listened to some of the concerns raised. It was thought that the reduction in budget might be £25 million. According to the Government's figures in today's announcement, the reduction has been £5.4 million, which is a lot better. However, the welcome has been a little like that of the condemned man who has to face the rest of his term in prison, in that since 2005 the industry has had a price freeze. We know that wages go up, taxes go up, and the price of petrol goes up—a lot of the services provided by the urology industry require home delivery—and all those factors are feeding in. Many of the products in question are produced from plastics based on oil, and we know that the price of oil is going up. We therefore have a price cut in an environment where there is a lot of inflationary pressure, so there will be pressure on the industry and it will impact on the provision of services to patients, which may have a wider impact on the national health service.
	More than 450,000 people are served by this industry: about 100,000 on stoma, and some 350,000 on a whole range of other products produced by the industry. From what I have learned in recent years, it is basically a good industry with a wide range of services. It provides not only products but a pretty widespread home delivery service, and additional services and advice are given as a matter of course, which people value. Indeed, the industry has been so successful over recent years that many people have incontinence products of which their own family are not aware, because they are able to live pretty normal lives. The technology, innovation and advance in this area has led that to be so, and it has been of real benefit to people.
	There has been concern about the proposed changes, and I intend to focus on just some of the comments that have been fed back to me from some of the companies involved. Mary White of the Paediatric Continence Forum, who comes from Matlock in Derbyshire, is concerned about incontinence products provided to mothers for their young babies. The problem is that many of the products provided for young babies are specialist products from small manufacturers and there is a concern that the changes will impact on people who produce single products, particularly those for niche areas. I hope that the Minister will think about how the changes will impact on the provision for those with babies.
	Home delivery is an important service for those with young children. If people who have one child with incontinence problems and two or three other children to look after receive a home delivery service, that is very important to them. One of the major players in the industry is Coloplast Ltd, which is based in Peterborough. I believe that it is the biggest company and that it has a wide range of products. It, too, has raised a number of concerns with me, and it has stated:
	"The Department has...retained a capped and banded payment structure based on the volume of all Part IX items prescribed by a Dispensing Appliance Contractor...This means that the fee which DACs receive per item falls significantly as their output increases. And DACs will receive no additional payment for items dispensed above the level of the cap".
	There is a cap of 50,000 items per month, whereas the company produces about 55,000 items, so its income will fall substantially. Its argument is that that approach will not increase efficiencies, particularly in the growth sector.
	Astra Tech, my constituent's company, has specific concerns. It is the leading intermittent catheter firm. That technologically advanced system allows many people to administer a catheter themselves—or it allows their carer to administer a catheter—so that they can stay at home. It is a LoFric project; the hydrophilic layers in the catheter provide lubrication, so that when it is inserted it does not provide friction on the urethra and, as a result, reduces the irritation by 90 to 95 per cent. when compared with alternative products. The company is a good one, providing a range of services, including home delivery. It has a general concern about the method of charging, which is per boxed item. The fact that most of its items come in one box and do not have follow-on products will impact on the way in which that the company is paid.
	Astra Tech welcomes the Department of Health's new proposals because the reduction is only 2 per cent., rather than the originally proposed 12 per cent. The revised proposal includes a new system of infrastructure payment and an extension of payment for nurse visits, which are now called appliance use reviews—AURs—and which Astra Tech supports. However, it has a specific concern that the new revised proposal for remuneration is mainly for the benefit of the stoma industry, despite the fact that an estimated 6 million people are affected by varying degrees of continence problems and only 100,000 are estimated to have stoma problems.
	In particular, the proposals will have a disproportionate effect on intermittent self-catheters, and as a result Astra Tech still stands to lose about 50 per cent. of its home delivery remuneration. As mentioned previously, unlike other urological companies, which stood to be adversely affected under the previous proposals, Astra Tech's position is different, because its market share is dependent on predominantly one product. Consequently, the company will not be able to offset any costs incurred on all the other product ranges across the stoma and urology market.
	Innovation is very important. As innovative products, LoFric appliances are packaged so that they are small, flexible and discreet. They also contain a sterile water supply that is integrated into the packaging of the products, which means that patients do not have to worry about bacterial contamination from a public water supply if they need to change their intermittent catheter in a public place. That offers a high value level of independence, which is one of the reasons why such products are so popular. As LoFric has no accessories, Astra Tech will not be able to receive other service payments for accessories in the same way as other companies do so. The true cost of delivery is thus not reflected in the service remuneration of the ISC products.
	The disproportionate effect on ISC products was acknowledged by the Department of Health in past negotiations, but the revised proposals still ignore the issue. The summary of the proposals states that
	"overall, we believe that patient care will be maintained and, where appropriate, improved".
	That may be the case for patients who are in receipt of services provided by the stoma home delivery service, but is not likely to be the case for those with ISC catheters.
	NICE guidelines on urinary incontinence state that intermittent catheterisation should be used for women with urinary retention who can be taught to self-catheterise or who have a carer to perform the technique. However, the Department of Health is risking the withdrawal of the service and specialist support which is provided for patients that use intermittent catheters.
	There is a specific problem for this innovative company that is providing a popular service for people who stay at home. It tells me today that its income for home delivery may be reduced for 10,000 households.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and for the way in which he is addressing these serious proposals. Like him, I have had several letters from constituents, one of whom wrote to me:
	"Having lived with a colostomy for a period of some 13 years, I am reliant on receiving a good...range of products and a supply service...Although having a colostomy requires careful management, it does not mean that I cannot live life to the full. I am, however, not willing to see a reduction in my quality of life resulting from a cost saving initiative by the Department of Health."

Dawn Primarolo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) on securing this debate on a matter that is of interest to him and his constituents, and to other hon. Members following comments by constituents or companies located in their constituencies. We are looking at the review of the arrangements under part IX of the drug tariff for the provision of services, especially stoma and incontinence appliances.
	I first wish to reassure hon. Members that no decision has been made on arrangements under part IX for the provision of these products and the related services. None will be made unless we are satisfied that the outcome of the review is about the quality of patient care and the support that they get. That has to be central to this.
	Part IX of the drug tariff is complicated. Not only does it include stoma and incontinence appliances, but dressings and chemical reagents, the latter largely being used by diabetics to monitor their blood glucose levels. Dressings and chemical reagents were reviewed during the early stages of the part IX review and the maintenance of patient care was a critical aim during that phase as well. For example, proposals had to take into account the fact that manufacturers provided diabetics with free meters to use chemical reagent strips as well as telephone care lines.
	I make those points because the hon. Gentleman referred to the length of the review of part IX and its cost. I am sure that it is probably an oversight on his part, but he referred to the costs for the total review, of which this is the final part. In every other area, we have demonstrated clearly that a review can take place that improves patient services and gets value for money for the taxpayer and the NHS. That phase of the review was concluded in October 2006, so we need to be careful that we do not imply that all the costs of part IX have been only about this particular subject.
	As the hon. Member for Poole says, the current phase of the review focuses on the arrangements for stoma and incontinence appliances. Part IX of the drug tariff—companies can decide whether or not to put their products within the tariff—lists more than 5,000 items. There is no transparency about what is reimbursed to dispensing appliance contractors for those items and the money that they receive for service provision.
	The arrangements have been in place and have not been properly reviewed for more than 20 years. That means not that the payments made to industry have not gone up during that time, but that the structure of the tariff has not. It is vital that in looking at the provision of these important and sensitive services we seek to separate the costs so that we can see the cost of the product, define the services, and ensure that the £260 million is spent how we would want to see it spent.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to home deliveries and advice and support lines, but the services are not universal or available to everyone throughout the country. They vary, and I do not believe that it is unreasonable for the Department to make it clear that it can increase the service provided—home services, deliveries, support and all the things to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for every patient while making it clear for the taxpayer what proportion of the money is paid for those support services and what is paid for the product. Unfortunately, there is a lack of transparency.
	I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard of the review led by my noble Friend Lord Darzi. It is centred on a vision of the NHS, which, as the House would expect, is that it should be fair, effective, personalised and safe. I hear what the manufacturers are saying, and that is their point of view about their products. Clearly, it needs to be taken into consideration. At no point during the review should any of us lose sight of the proposition: how do we ensure that the aim of the part IX review is to ensure the service for the products provided is fully consistent no matter where a user lives in England? That will mean considering the variations in home delivery services and where they do not exist, as well as ensuring that the reviews for those patients are carried out by specialist nurses or pharmacists to aid the patients' knowledge of the appliances. It will mean ensuring that every patient receives that service. Our definition of part IX should make it clear that that is what we seek to achieve.
	Of course, I acknowledge—this has been the case all along—that there has been huge speculation about the possible outcome of the review. I regret deeply that users in particular have been very worried, sometimes unnecessarily so, that the service that they have come to depend on somehow will no longer be available to them, and that will not be the case.
	The services that we seek to deliver are of a highly sensitive and personal nature, and any new arrangement needs to reach a conclusion that is right for patients, right for the NHS and right for the suppliers. Patients must come first every time. Furthermore, the Government are determined to ensure that the current level of patient care is maintained and, where appropriate, improved. That is why we have been prepared to listen carefully at every point in the review. My objective as a Minister is that I would rather take a little longer and get it right than do it quickly and find that we have made mistakes that are detrimental either to manufacturers but, more importantly, to the patients.
	The hon. Gentleman is now aware of the further consultation that has just been published on the Department of Health's website—he referred to it himself—along with the impact assessment, which is intended to help to inform responses. The proposals that it contains reflect all the responses that the Department has received from earlier consultations. I fully admit to the House that I was a little frustrated at times that some of the earlier consultations did not get me closer to a conclusion; but each time, I was convinced by the Department that, because sufficient outstanding items still needed to be clarified, particularly with manufacturers, we needed to issue a consultation document to refine the proposals.
	Industry representatives have told us in particular that the new arrangements had to be more affordable than those that we proposed in September 2007, and I am confident that the proposals that we have now made will help to maintain dispensing appliance contractors' current remuneration, while extending fees for certain services to the pharmacy contractors as well.

Dawn Primarolo: I absolutely acknowledge the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am also confident—he referred to this—that the proposed 2 per cent. reduction in the reimbursement for items will deliver a level of value for money for the NHS, while allowing manufacturers to provide a wider range of appliances. Certainly, based on the current number of part IX items dispensed, our proposals represent an additional investment of £5 million. Of course, the investment will continue to increase in line with any increment in the number of items dispensed.
	Due to improving quality of service delivery, more and more patients are relying on stoma and neurology appliances, and the volume of dispensed items is increasing by more than 7 per cent. a year. I urge all those who are interested—I do not really think that I need to urge them, but I will, for the record—whether they be patients, health professionals working in the area or manufacturers, to respond clearly to the consultation. It is vital that they do so, so that the Government can take their proposals forward. It is important that we try to draw the review to a conclusion and set out a lasting framework.
	In conclusion, I acknowledge that the review has gone on for a considerable time. However, in the light of my comments, I hope that the House will agree that it is critical that we seek solutions that providers will find more acceptable if patient care is to be maintained. The speech made by the hon. Member for Poole should be taken note of, as should the comments of manufacturers and patients. If we can continue to work in a spirit of co-operation—I have no reason to believe that we cannot—I am confident that we will arrive at a lasting solution. When the consultation, which I sincerely hope is the final one, closes in September, I hope that we will have all the facts on the table, be clear about the direction, have agreement and at last be able to make progress.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.